4 


Upper  row— August  Spies,  Albert  R.  Parsons,  Louis  Lingo 
Center  row — Adolph  Fisher,  George  Engel 
Lower  row— Oscar  Neebe,  Samuel  Fielden,  Michael  Schwab 


Life  of  Albert  R.  Parsons 


With  a  true  history  of  the  Anarchist  trial,  taken  from  the  official  records 
of  the  court  and  a  brief  history  of  the  labor  movement  in  America  (3d 
edition). 

The  volume  contains  353  octavo  pages,  beautifully  illustrated,  and 
nicely  bound  in  cloth  and  gilt. 


PRICE,  ONLY  $1.50. 

Order  from  the  publisher, 

MRS.  LUCY  E.  PARSONS 

1000  S.  PAULINA  ST.  CHICAGO,  ILL. 

Or  from  your  news  dealer. 


HANGING  OF  THE  ANARCHISTS 


Some  of  the  Numerous  Reviews 

“The  hanging  of  the  Anarchists  in  Chicago  is  now  sufficiently  a 
matter  of  history  to  permit  its  discussion  without  the  heat  of  prejudice 
1  at  a  frightened  capitalist  press  had  thrown  upon  it  at  the  time  of  its 
t  Afc  ^currence. 

“The  pardon  of  Governor  Altgeld,  with  his  reasons  for  granting  it, 
which  are  included  in  this  work,  has  shown  with  absolute,  certainty  that 
the  men  who  were  hanged  upon  that  November  day  in  1887  were  mur¬ 
dered  for  no  other  reason  than  because  victims  were  needed  to  frighten 
the  working  class  back  into  humble  submission  *  *  *  It  shows  beyond  a 
doubt  that  the  present  ruling  class  will  stop  at  nothing  in  their  endeavors 
to  terrorize  those  who  theaten  their  rulership  *  *  *  The  tremendous  and 
terrible  facts  that  are  told  in  this  book  reach  a  dramatic  height  that 
thrills  and  enthralls  the  reader.” — International  Socialist  Review. 

More  than  half  of  the  book  is  justly  occupied  with  the  details  of 
the  Havmarket  incident,  from  the  beginning  of  the  eight-hour  movement 
in  the  spring  of  1886  to  the  death  of  the  subject  of  the  biography,  in  the 
fall  of  1887. 

“The  Statesman  can  commend  to  those  who  are  familiar  with  only 


•  ( 

the  other  side  of  this  great  tragedy,  as  a  fair  presentation  of  the  side  un¬ 
examined  by  them.” — Statesman  Magazine. 

“This  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  books  ever  published  in 
America;  it  is  a  labor  of  love  and  memoir  compiled  and  published  by 
the  devoted  wife  of  a  martyr  *  *  *  in  a  cause  which  both  husband  and 
wife  believed  the  cause  of  humanity.” — Women’s  Journal,  Boston,  Mass. 

“It  contains  information  most  valuable  and  which  cannot  be  ob¬ 
tained  elsewhere.  *  *  *  This  Life  of  Albert  R.  Parsons  should  be  read 
and  carefully  studied  by  every  student  of  the  class  struggle.” — Wilshire’s 
Magazine. 

The  Life  of  Albert  R.  Parsons 

“The  Life  of  Albert  R.  Parsons  has  been  issued  in  a  second  edition 
with  some  new  matter,  notably  Governor  Altgeld’s  statement  of  the  rea¬ 
sons  why  he  pardoned  the  three  surviving  Anarchists  in  1893.  Other¬ 
wise  the  book  appears  to  be  substantially  the  same  as  when  it  appeared 
in  1889.  It  was  acknowledged  then  to  be  a  surprisingly  temperate  and 
strong  presentation  of  evidence  tending  to  show  that  Parsons  was  a 
victim  of  popular  furore.  After  the  lapse  of  years  the  facts  presented 
in  these  pages  impress  one  to  that  effect  more  deeply  than  before.  The 
figure  of  Parsons  walking  into  court  of  his  own  free  will,  and  there  con¬ 
demned  to  death  under  unusual  circumstances,  has  dramatic  interest, 
which  in  itself  would  serve  to  keep  the  book  alive  for  avlong  time,  not¬ 
withstanding  the  fact  that  it  is  largely  a  compilation.” — Chicago  Record- 
Hcrald. 

February  10,  1904. 

“Every  chapter  has  an  independent  interest  of  its  own,  and  some 
chapters  weaved  a  sympathetic  spell  around  the  reader’s  heart  in  spite 
of  him.” — Gen.  M.  M.  Trumbull. 

“It  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  books  of  this  century;  it  holds 
the  reader  spell-bound.  *  *  *  Mrs.  Parsons  has  done  her  work  well. 
The  motive  that  has  prompted  her  appeals  to  every  wife-heart.” — Mt. 
Vernon  Progressive  Farmer. 

“Mrs.  Parsons’  work  has  been  mainly  that  of  a  compiler,  but  she 
has  performed  her  task  carefully  and  intelligently.” — Chicago  Daily  News. 


“The  Principles  of  Anarchism” 

A  Lecture  by  LUCY  E.  PARSONS 

Presenting  the  Principles  of  Anarchism  in  a  simple  manner. 
Easily  understood.  Especially  adapted  to  the  under¬ 
standing  of  the  average  reader 

PRICE  10  CENTS 

Lucy  E.  Parsons,  Publisher,  1000  S.  Paulina  St.,  Chicago,  Ill. 


Monument  erected  above  their  graves  in  Waldheim  Cemetery 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/famousspeechesofOOpars 


\ 


The  Famous  Speeches  of  the  Eight 
Chicago  Anarchists  in  Court 


When  asked  if  they  had  anything  to  say 
why  sentence  of  death  should  not 
be  passed  upon  them 


October  7, 8  and  9, 1886 


THEIR  LAST  WORDS  ON  THE  SCAFFOLD* 

There  will  come  a  time  when  our  silence  will  be  more  powerful  than  the 
voices  you  strangle  today. — August  Spies. 

Hurrah  for  Anarchy! — George  Engel. 

Hurrah  for  Anarchy!  This  is  the  happiest  moment  of  my  life. — Adolph 
Fischer. 

Let  me  speak,  oh  men  of  America!  Will  you  let  me  speak,  Sheriff  Mat- 
son!  Let  the  voice  of  the  people  be  heard!  Oh —  . — Albert  R.  Parsons. 

*  The  men  were  not  allowed  to  speak  from  the  gallows.  The  few  words  here  given 
were  uttered  while  the  officers  were  hurriedly  adjusting  the  ropes  and  masks. 


Price  25  cents ,  Postage  5  cents 
Nicely  Bound  in  Cloth ,  75  cents 
THIRD  EDITION 


/ 

LUCY  E.  PARSONS,  Publisher 


1 000  S.  Paulina  Street 


CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


"P2£'f 

\^\0 


A  J 


PREFACE 


For  over  twenty  years  these  last  words  to  the  world  from  men  con¬ 
demned  to  death  for  no  other  reason  than  because  their  activity  in  behalf 
of  the  producing  class  was  deemed  “dangerous”  to  established  “order,”  have 
remained  in  the  archives  of  history,  almost  forgotten,  save  by  the  faithful 
few. 

To  the  younger  generation  this  message — an  echo  from  the  grave — will 
be  singularly  timely,  as  present-day  labor  conditions  but  bear  out  the  real 
significance  and  meaning  of  the  prophecies  and  warnings  of  these  martyrs 
"|_to  the  cause  of  humanity. 

The  Anarchist  case,  like  all  great  historic  trials,  must  finally'  be  brought 

Oo 

before  the  bar  of  an  awakened  public  conscience  who  will  render  the  final 
^  verdict  of  history.  Before  this  bar  I  now  bring  the  case;  it  comes  in  the 
form  of  their  last  message,  their  defense. 

So  much  has  been  said  and  written  and  so  little  really  known  in  recent 


years  about  this  famous  case,  even  by  so-called  radicals,  that  those  as  fam- 
>Jliar  as  I  with  all  the  details,  have  many  times  stood  aghast  and  indignant 
at  the  vile  slander  heaped  upon  those  murdered  comrades  by  “radicals.” 
For  the  enemy  I  cared  nothing.  A  Socialist  daily  newspaper  of  November 
11,  1909,  in  commenting  upon  the  twent"-«econd  anniversary  of  their  death, 
contains  this  jumble: 

“We  might  excuse  them  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  in  social  struggles 
the  worst  of  all  crimes  is  a  mistake.  *  *  *  Then  that  Haymarket  bomb  was 
thrown.  Whether  it  \,2ls  thrown  by  some  fool  or  fanatic  or  police  spy  no 
-A  one  has  ever  known  save  he  who  threw  it,  and  he  has  never  spoken.  It  is 
certain  that  the  men  who  were  hanged  and  imprisoned  had  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  Few  of  their  enemies  would  deny  that  today.  *  *  *  The  point  is 
that  it  was  not  alone  these  four  men  that  were  strangled  in  Cook  county 
jail  yard.  The  Labor  Movement  of  America  was  also  strangled.  The  work¬ 
ing  class  of  America  in  1886  was  moving  forward  as  no  other  working  class 
in  the  world  was  moving.  It  was  moving  forward  as  the  labor  movements 
of  other  countries  have  since  moved,  only  at  greater  speed,  using  its  po¬ 
litical  and  industrial  power  at  the  same  time.  It  was  using  both  somewhat 
crudely  as  yet,  but  still  more  intelligently  than  that  class  as  a  whole  is  using 
its  power  today.  *  *  *  No  more  powerful  blow  was  ever  struck  for  capital¬ 
ism  than  when  that  bomb  was  thrown  on  Haymarket  square.  It  set  the  la- 

4bor  movement  of  America  back  a  generation,  and  its  effects  have  not  yet 
disappeared.” 

Excellent  logic !  All  the  capitalist  need  to  do  is  to  hire  some  “fool  or 


4 


PREFACE 


fanatic  or  police  spy”  to  throw  a  bomb  now  and  then  and  the  labor  move¬ 
ment  is  “set  back  a  generation.”  A  cheap  and  easy  way  to  “settle”  the  labor 
movement,  at  least  for  a  generation,  then  the  next  generation  of  capitalists 
can  do  likewise. 

*  *  *  “They  may  be  excused  because  they  had  had  no  experience  to 
guide  them,  and  they  paid  for  their  mistake  with  the  last  full  measure  with 
which  men  may  pay  for  anything.  But  we  cannot  excuse  those  who  today, 
with  the  knowledge  of  these  facts  before  them,  seek  to  deprive  labor  of  its 
legitimate  weapons,  or  lead  him  to  throw  away  his  political  power,  or  to 
deliver  it  over  to  his  enemies.  These  cannot  plead  ignorance.” 

Thus,  even  in  the  solemn  precincts  of  the  martyred  dead,  the  politician 
unabashed  hawks  his  wares ! 

The  writer  of  this  preface  has  but  little  to  add  to  these  masterful 
speeches,  viz.,  to  the  case,  except  a  few  of  the  court’s  rulings. 

Let  us  select  at  random  one  ruling  of  the  judge  in  picking  the  jury. 
The  following  is  taken  from  the  records  of  the  trial  word  for  word : 

James  H.  Walker  said  he  had  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  in¬ 
nocence  of  the  defendants,  which  opinion  he  still  held.  Asked  whether  this 
would  influence  his  verdict,  he  replied:  “Well,  I  am  willing  to  admit  my 
opinion  would  handicap  my  judgment,  possibly.” 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  could  listen  to  the  testimony  and  the  charge 
of  the  court  and  decide  upon  that  alone,  uninfluenced  and  unbiased  by  the 
opinion  that  you  now  have?  A.  No,  I  don’t  say  that. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  asked  you.  A.  I  said  I  would  be  handicapped. 

Q.  Now,  considering  all  prejudice  and  all  opinions  that  you  now  have, 
is  there  anything,  if  the  testimony  were  equally  balanced,  that  would  require 
you  to  decide  one  way  or  the  other  in  accordance  with  your  opinion  or  prej¬ 
udice?  A.  If  the  testimony  was  equally  balanced  I  would  hold  my  present 
opinion,  sir. 

Q.  That  is,  you  would  throw  your  opinion  on  the  scale,  which  would 
give  it  greater  weight — your  present  opinion  would  turn  the  scale  in  favor 
of  your  present  opinion.  That  is  assuming  that  your  present  opinion  is  that 
the  defendants  are  guilty — or  some  of  them.  Now,  suppose,  if  the  testimony 
were  equally  balanced,  your  present  opinion  would  warrant  you  in  convicting 
them,  you  would  believe,  assuming  that  your  present  opinion  is  that  they 
are  guilty?  A  I  presume  it  would. 

Q.  Well,  you  believe  it  would — that  is  your  present  belief,  is  it? 
A.  Yes. 

The  Court.  I  suppose  you  know  that  the  law  is,  that  no  man  is  to  be 
convicted  of  any  crime  upon  the  evidence  of  his  trial,  unless  that  evidence 
proves  that  he  is  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Court.  That  you  are  familiar  with,  of  course.  Now,  do  you  be¬ 
lieve  that  you  can  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict,  without  any  re¬ 
gard  to  rumor  and  what  you  may  have  in  your  mind  in  the  way  of  suspi¬ 
cion,  impression,  etc.?  But  do  you  believe  that  you  can  fairly  and  impartially 


PREFACE 


5 


render  a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  the  case? 
A.  I  shall  try  to  do  it,  sir. 

Q.  But  do  you  believe  that  you  can  sit  here  and  fairly  and  impartially 
make  up  your  mind  from  the  evidence,  whether  that  evidence  prove  that 
they  are  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  or  not?  A.  I  think  I  could,  but  I 
should  feel  that  I  was  a  little  handicapped  in  my  judgment.  I  am  preju¬ 
diced,  sir. 

The  Court.  Well,  that  is  a  sufficient  qualification  for  a  juror  IN  THIS 
CASE.  Of  course,  the  more  a  man  feels  that  he  is  handicapped,  the  more 
he  will  guard  against  it. 

How  the  moneyed  interests  appreciated  the  services  of  these  jurors,  who, 
in  the  brief  space  of  three  hours,  could  bring  in  the  astonishing  verdict  which 
condemned  to  death  eight  men  (three  of  whom  were  afterwards  pardoned 
by  that  great  and  noble  man,  Governor  John  P.  Altgeld)  is  proven  by  the 
following  and  many  similar  letters. 

“Chicago,  August  20. 

“Editor  of  the  Tribune. 

“The  long  agony  is  over.  Law  has  triumphed.  Anarchy  is  defeated. 
The  conspirators  have  been  promptly  convicted.  Let  them  be  as  promptly 
punished.  The  ‘twelve  good  men  and  true’  whose  honesty  and  fearlessness 
made  a  conviction  possible,  should  not  be  forgotten.  They  have  performed 
their  unpleasant  duty  without  flinching.  Let  them  be  generously  remembered. 
Raise  a  fund — say  $100,000 — to  be  presented  with  the  thanks  of  a  grateful 
people. 

“E.  A.  Mulford.” 

In  discharging  the  jury  Judge  Gary  addressed  them  as  follows: 

“Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  have  finished  this  long  and  very  arduous 
trial.  I  hope  everything  has  been  done  that  could  possibly  be  done  to  make 
this  sacrifice  and  hardship  as  mild  as  might  be  permitted.  It  does  not  be¬ 
come  me  to  say  anything  in  regard  to  the  case  that  you  have  tried  or  of  the 
verdict  you  have  rendered,  but  men  compulsory  serving  as  jurors  as  you  have 
done,  deserve  some  recognition  of  the  service  you  have  performed  beside 
the  meager  compensation  you  are  to  receive.  You  are  discharged  from  fur¬ 
ther  attendance  upon  this  court.  I  understand  that  some  carriages  are  in 
attendance  to  convey  you  from  this  place.” 

Judas  received  his  “thirty  pieces  of  silver,”  then  went  off  and  hanged 
himself.  The  jury  in  the  Anarchist  case  also  got  their  “pieces  of  silver.” 
But  it  didn’t  do  them  much  good,  as  five  of  them  have  died  in  asylums  for 
the  insane  in  this  state,  according  to  a  statement  published  in  a  capitalist 
newspaper. 

I  now  feel  that  the  crowning  effort  of  my  long  service  in  the  radical 
movement  has  been  consummated.  I  am  able  to  bring  this  last  message  of 
Parsons  and  his  comrades  to  the  public. 

Should  death  claim  me  now,  I  feel  that  this  last  service  is  the  most  use¬ 
ful  to  radical  thought  that  I  have  ever  rendered.  Those  who  assisted  in 


6 


PREFACE 


this  work,  I  sincerely  thank.  Who  were  they  who  assisted  me  financially? 

The  very  trades  unions  which  those  men  organized  twenty-five  years  ago. 

I  close  by  adding  the  following  appropriate  lines  from  Lowell: 

“Many  loved  truth  and  lavished  life’s  best  oil 
Amid  the  dust  of  books  to  find  her, 

Content  at  last  for  guerdon  of  their  toil 

With  the  cast  mantle  she  has  left  behind  her, 

Many  in  sad  faith  sought  her, 

Many  with  crossed  hands  sighed  for  her, 

But  these,  our  brothers,  fought  for  her, 

At  life’s  dear  peril  wrought  for  her, 

So  loved  her  that  they  died  for  her. 

Tasting  the  raptured  sweetness 
Of  her  divine  completeness. 

Their  higher  instincts  knew. 

Those  love  her  best  who  to  themselves  are  true, 

And  what  they  dared  to  dream  of,  dared  to  do. 

They  followed  her  and  found  her. 

Where  all  may  hope  to  find, 

Not  in  the  ashes  of  the  burnt-out  mind, 

But  beautiful  with  danger’s  sweetness  round  her, 

Where  faith  made  whole  with  deed, 

Breathes  its  awakening  breath 
Into  the  lifeless  creed. 

They  saw  her  plumed  and  mailed, 

With  sweet,  stern  face  unveiled, 

And  all  repaying  eyes  looked  proud  on  them  in  death. 

Lucy  S.  Parsons. 


Chicago,  III.,  February  8,  1910. 


PREFACE  TO  SECOND  EDITION 


The  first  edition  of  the  Famous  Speeches  having  been  rapidly  ex¬ 
hausted,  necessitating  hasty  preparations  for  a  second,  I  added  to  the 
preface  of  the  first  a  few  scraps  of  history  and  information  for  the  new 
generation  and  people  unacquainted  with  Chicago  history.  I  now  add  to 
the  preface  of  the  second  edition  some  matter  which  was  suggested  to  me 
by  inquirers  whom  I  met  during  my  recent  tour  through  the  West  and 
along  the  Pacific  Coast. 

On  making  the  statement  that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars 
had  been  subscribed  by  capitalists  of  Chicago  to  stamp  out  “Anarchy/' 
many  sincere  but  disinterested  persons  implied  that  perhaps  I,  being 
an  interested  and  possibly  prejudiced  party,  had  exaggerated.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  excerpts  from  a  Chicago  daily  of  several  years  ago  will  be  ade¬ 
quate  evidence  that  I  did  not  exaggerate  nor  did  I  paint  the  matter 
as  black  as  might  have  been.  Says  the  Chicago  Herald  of  January  4, 
1892: 

(Head  Lines  of  Article.) 

WILL  BLEED  NO  MORE.— MONEYED  MEN  TIE  THEIR  PURSES 


Policemen  Given  $487,000  in  Five  Years  for  Wiping  Out  Reds. — The 
Supply  Cut  Off. — Financial  Reasons  for  the  Greif  Hall*  Scare. 


Strange  stories  are  current  about  the  recent  police  raid  on  Greif’s 
Hall.  That  a  secret  police  fund  was  established  by  prominent  citizens 
and  used  to  put  the  “police  in  a  good  humor”  is  also  set  forth.  Here 
is  a  story  told  a  Herald  representative  by  one  of  Chicago’s  most  promi¬ 
nent  citizens,  an  attorney  of  great  prominence,  whose  clients  are  only 
of  the  wealthy  class.  He  is  not  averse  to  giving  the  public  his  ideas 
on  economic  questions  nor  does  he  flinch  from  being  the.  accuser  in 
the  story  he  tells. 

“The  raid  at  Greif’s  Hall,”  said  the  lawyer,  “was  simply  a  scheme 
to  show  men  who  had  been  putting  up  money  to  keep  the  anarchist 
movement  down,  that  the  followers  of  Parsons  and  Spies  were  not  yet 
dead.  Major  McClaughrey  was  fooled.  He  admits  it.  He  put  up  sev¬ 
eral  hundred  dollars  to  square  himself  with  men  who  had  suffered 
loss  by  reason  of  Inspector  Lewis’  conduct. 

McClaughrey  Was  Led  Astray. 

“That  he  was  badly  advised  and  led  into  serious  complications  he 
admits  Now,  here  is  the  true  story  of  the  why  and  wherefore. 

“After  the  riot  of  May  4,  1886,  a  mighty  oath  was  taken  by  Bon- 
field’s  men  that  ample  revenge  would  be  had.  All  over  the  city  police¬ 
men  came  together  and  said:  ‘We  must  protect  our  kind;  for  the  sake 
of  our  own  jobs  we  must  stamp  out  anarchy;  we  must  have  money, 
and  only  the  rich  can  supply  that.’ 


*  Greif’s  Hall,  a  public  hall  where  meetings  were  held. 


8 


PREFACE 


“Two  days  after  the  Haymarket  Riot  an  invitation  addressed  to 
upward  of  three  hundred  leading  capitalists  was  sent  through  the  mail. 
Here  is  a  copy: 

“  ‘In  view  of  the  threatening  crusade  against  interests  that  have  been 
founded  by  men  and  built  into  splendid  structures  it  is  believed  to  be 
necessary  that  we  combine  and  aid  the  municipal  government  in  the 
suppression  of  ideas  which  are  antagonistic  to  those  held  by  good  citi¬ 
zens  of  this  country.  You  will,  if  it  please  you,  go  on  May  7th,  be¬ 
tween  the  hours  of  9  and  10  o’clock  p.  m.,  to  No.  -  Prairie  Avenue. 

Do  not  go  in  your  carriage.  Take  a  car  or  walk.  It  is  absolutely  nec¬ 
essary  that  no  publicity  be  given  to  the  meeting/ 

“These  invitations  were,  as  I  said,  sent  to  nearly  three  hundred 
prominent  citizens.  Of  this  number  100  were  asked  to  meet  at  one 
house,  75  at  another,  and  75  at  a  house  on  the  West  Side. 

Millionaires  Get  Together. 

“The  meetings  were  called  to  order  at  the  same  hour.  At  the  one 
I  attended  the  chairman  was  and  is  today  a  merchant  prince.  The  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  meeting  was  made  known.  That  capital  is  in  jeopardy,  it 
is  necessary  to  stamp  out  anarchy,  even  though  it  cost  us  half  our 
fortunes.  To  cut  the  story  short,  we  chipped  in  and  $51,000  had  been 
subscribed.  At  11  o’clock  we  received  reports  from  the  other  meetings; 
there  had  been  $64,000  pledged,  which  gave  a  total  of  $115,000,  and 
pledges  were  also  set  forth  that  each  member  would  be  personally  re¬ 
sponsible  for  an  annual  fund,  the  total  amount  of  which  was  $100,000, 
to  be  continued  until  anarchy  had  been  buried  deep  as  Spies  and  Par¬ 
sons  and  their  pals.” 

“Throughout  the  years  that  followed  until  last  October  we  have  all 
responded  to  the  assessments  of  the  finance  committee  of  the  citizens’ 
movement.  It  was  agreed  at  the  first  meeting  that  no  specific  state¬ 
ment  of  the  receipts  or  expenditures  should  be  demanded  of  the  com¬ 
mittee.  The  instructions  were  brief,  and,  I  believe,  carried  out.  Use 
this  money  as  you  may  find  best,  the  object  being  to  crush  out  anarchy, 
were  the  sentiments  expressed. 

“The  latter  part  of  the  month  of  last  October  a  general  meeting 
was  held  and  the  finance  committee  were  present  in  a  body.  No  one 
knew  why  the  meeting  was  called.  When  we  were  assembled  the  chair¬ 
man  of  the  committee  made  a  speech.  He  said  there  was  $57,650  in  the 
treasury,  that  no  money  had  been  expended  for  a  year,  and  that  the 
committee  were  of  the  opinion  that  anarchy  was  dead  in  Chicago,  but 
that  during  the  last  week  he  had  been  approached  by  a  certain  police 
officer  who  declared  that  the  Reds  were  about  to  break  forth  again  and 
demanded  money. 

Would  Not  Be  Bled  Longer. 

“The  committee  had  refused  to  give  it.  The  committee  then  asked 
sanction  of  the  subscribers  and  it  was  freely  granted.  The  fact  that  a 
policeman  had  demanded  money  set  several  of  us  to  thinking  and  we, 
notwithstanding  our  agreement,  began  to  make  inquiries.  We  learned 
that  during  the  years  following  the  Haymarket  riot  there  had  been  two 
police  funds,  that  guaranteed  by  the  city  and  one  furnished  by  the 
citizens.  From  this  latter  fund,  which  had  ranged  from  $50,000  to  $140,- 


PREFACE 


9 


000  annually,  there  had  been  drawn  every  dollar  subscribed  except  that 
of  the  last  year.  A  few  days  before  the  raid  on  Greff's  Hall  a  demand 
had  been  made,  and  the  committee,  refused  another  penny!  Anarchy 
no  longer  exists,  said  the  chairman,  and  we  are  about  to  close  our  books. 
Three  days  later  Greif’s  Hiall  was  raided  by  Inspector  Lewis  and  his 
men.  It  was  queer  indeed  that  violence  should  have  been  resorted  to. 
The  meeting  had  been  advertised  in  the  daily  press.  No  attempt  at 
secrecy  was  made.  It  was  a  meeting  of  the  stockholders  of  the  Arbei- 
ter-Zeitung.  But  the  officers  used  guns  and  clubs,  destroyed  furniture 
and  succeeded  in  creating  a  panic.  They  had  no  warrant  to  search  the 
premises,  yet  they  did  so. 

“Now  comes  the  odd  spectacle  of  a  chief  of  police  taking  money 
out  of  his  own  pocket  to  pay  damages  for  the  depredations  committed 
by  men  whom  he  subsequently  claims  he  instructed  to  commit  what 
proved  to  be.  illegal  acts. 

“The  financial  committee  called  another  meeting  immediately  after 
the  raid.  There  was  no  disguising  of  charges — that  the  raid  was  di¬ 
rectly  or  indirectly  instituted  for  the  purposes  of  inspiring  the  men 
who  had  subscribed  to  the  fund  with  the  idea  that  the  Reds  were  again 
on  the  warpath.  We  saw  through  the  trick  and  declined  to  subscribe 
another  cent.  In  a  few  days  our  wisdom  was  made  apparent.  The 
Herald  published  a  remarkable  story  giving  the  details  of  the  life  of 
every  prominent  anarchist  who,  in  1886,  had  infested  Chicago.  By  this 
article  we  saw  that  no  more  than  a  dozen  men  who  could  be  classed 
as  dangerous  were  still  in  Chicago.  That  settled  it.  We  ordered  the 
committee  to  balance  the  books  and  make  a  pro  rata  division  of  the 
funds.  This  order  had  been  anticipated  and  a  report  was  read  which 
showed  that  $487,000  had  been  expended  and  all  we  had  to  show  for 
it  was  the  hanging  of  four  men,  the  horrible  self-murder  of  one,  the 
imprisonment  of  three  others  and  the  unearthing  of  an  alleged  plot 
against  Grinnell  and  Judge  Gary.” 

“Then  the  inference  is  that  certain  police  officers  inspired  the  raid 
at  Greif’s  Hall  for  the  purpose  of  creating  the  impression  that  anarchy 
was  still  rampant  and  thus  cause  the  citizens  to  put  up  more  money 
which  should  be  secretly  expended?” 

“That  is  it  exactly,  but  we  did  not  nibble  at  the  bait;  we  have  had 
enough.” 

*  *  * 

“During  the  anarchist  troubles  a  vast  sum  of  money  was  subscribed 
and  expended.  I  do  not  know  how  it  went,  but  somebody  reaped  a 
harvest.”— J.  Irving  Pearce  (one  of  the  subscribers  to  the  secret  fund). 

*“It  will  all  come  out  some  day,”  said  a  member  of  the  citizens’  com¬ 
mittee,  “no  matter  how  closely  the  members  of  the  finance  committee 
hold  their  tongues.  Somebody  has  got  rich  out  of  this  thing  and  the 
raid  on  Greif’s  Hall  was  intended  solely  to  bolster  up  the  ‘back-sliding’ 
subscribers’  fund  from  which  policemen  drew  thousands  of  dollars.” 

Schaack’s  Visions. 

Everybody  in  Chicago  knows  of  the  sensational  charges  made 

*Can  there  be  yet  a  doubt  that  in  the  trial  and  conviction  of  our 
Comrades  every  principle  of  justice  known  to  civilization  was  violated? 


10 


PREFACE 


against  Captain  Schaack  by  Fred  Ebersold,  ex-chief  of  police.  He  de¬ 
clared  that  Mike  Schaack  had  come  to  him  and  requested  the  privilege 
of  manufacturing  evidence  against  the  accused  (the  anarchists  who  were 
tried). 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  again  to  express  my  appreciation  and  grati¬ 
tude  for  the  support  and  encouragement  accorded  me  by  organized 
Labor. 


Chicago.  June  22,  1910. 


LUCY  E.  PARSONS. 


cADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 

Your  Honor:  In  addressing  this  court  I  speak  as  the  representative  of 
one  class  to  the  representative  of  another.  I  will  begin  with  the  words  ut¬ 
tered  five  hundred  years  ago  on  a  similar  occasion,  by  the  Venetian  Doge 
Faheri,  who,  addressing  the  court,  said:  “My  defense  is  your  accusation ;  the 
causes  of  my  alleged  crime  your  history !”  I  have  been  indicted  on  a  charge 
of  murder,  as  an  accomplice  or  accessory.  Upon  this  indictment  I  have  been 
convicted.  There  was  no  evidence  produced  by  the  State  to  show  or  even 
indicate  that  I  had  any  knowledge  of  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb,  or  that 
I  myself  had  anything  to  do  with  the  throwing  of  the  missile,  unless,  of 
course,  you  weigh  the  testimony  of  the  accomplices  of  the  State’s  attorney 
and  Bonfield,  the  testimony  of  Thompson  and  Gilmer,  by  the  price  they  were 
paid  for  it.  If  there  was  no  evidence  to  show  that  I  was  legally  responsi¬ 
ble  for  the  deed,  then  my  conviction  and  the  execution  of  the  sentence  is 
nothing  less  than  willful,  malicious,  and  deliberate  murder,  as  foul  a  murder 
as  may  be  found  in  the  annals  of  religious,  political,  or  any  other  sort  of 
persecution.  There  have  been  many  judicial  murders  committed  where  the 
representatives  of  the  State  were  acting  in  good  faith,  believing  their  victims 
to  be  guilty  of  the  charge  accused  of.  In  this  case  the  representatives  of 
the  State  cannot  shield  themselves  with  a  similar  excuse.  For  they  them¬ 
selves  have  fabricated  most  of  the  testimony  which  was  used  as  a  pretense 
to  convict  us;  to  convict  us  by  a  jury  picked  out  to  convict!  Before  this 
court,  and  before  the  public,  which  is  supposed  to  be  the  State,  I  charge  the 
State’s  attorney  and  Bonfield  with  the  heinous  conspiracy  to  commit  murder. 

I  will  state  a  little  incident  which  may  throw  light  upon  this  charge.  On 
the  evening  on  which  the  Praetorian  Guards  of  the  Citizen’s  Association,  the 
Bankers’  Association,  the  Association  of  the  Board  of  Trade  men,  and  the 
railroad  princes,  attacked  the  meeting  of  workingmen  on  the  Haymarket, 
with  murderous  intent — on  that  evening,  about  eight  o’clock,  I  met  a  young 
man,  Legner  by  name,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Aurora  Turn-Verein.  He 
accompanied  me,  and  never  left  me  on  that  evening  until  I  jumped  from  the 
wagon,  a  few  seconds  before  the  explosion  occurred.  He  knew  that  I  had 
not  seen  Schwab  that  evening.  He  knew  that  I  had  no  such  conversation 
with  anybody  as  Mr.  Marshall  Field’s  protege,  Thompson,  testified  to.  He 
knew  that  I  did  not  jump  from  the  wagon  to  strike  the  match  and  hand  it 
to  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb.  He  is  not  a  Socialist.  Why  did  we  not 
bring  him  on  the  stand?  Because  the  honorable  representatives  of  the  State, 
Grinnell  and  Bonfield,  spirited  him  away.  These  honorable  gentlemen  knew 
everything  about  Legner.  They  knew  that  his  testimony  would  prove  the 
perjury  of  Thompson  and  Gilmer  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt.  Legner’s 
name  was  on  the  list  of  witnesses  for  the  State.  He  was  not  called,  how¬ 
ever,  for  obvious  reasons.  Aye,  he  stated  to  a  number  of  friends  that  he 
had  been  offered  $500  if  he  would  leave  the  city,  and  threatened  with  direful 
things  if  he  remained  here  and  appeared  as  a  witness  for  the  defense.  He 
replied  that  he  could  neither  be  bought  nor  bulldozed  to  serve  such  a  dam¬ 
nable  and  dastardly  plot.  When  we  wanted  Legner,  he  could  not  be  found; 
Mr.  Grinnell  said — and  Mr.  Grinnell  is  an  honorable  man! — that  he  had 

himself  been  searching  for  the  young  man,  but  had  not  been  able  to  find 

him.  About  three  weeks  later  I  learned  that  the  very  same  young  man  had 
been  kidnaped  and  taken  to  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  by  two  of  the  illustrious  guard¬ 
ians  of  “law  and  order,”  two  Chicago  detectives.  Let  Mr.  Grinnell,  let  the 

Citizens’  Association,  his  employer,  let  them  answer  for  this!  And  let  the 

public  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  would-be  assassins! 


12 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


No,  I  repeat,  the  prosecution  has  not  established  our  legal  guilt,  not¬ 
withstanding  the  purchased  and  perjured  testimony  of  some,  and  notwith¬ 
standing  the  originality  of  the  proceedings  of  this  trial.  And  as  long  as 
this  has  not  been  done,  and  you  pronounce  upon  us  the  sentence  of  an  ap¬ 
pointed  vigilance  committee,  acting  as  a  jury,  I  say,  you,  the  alleged  repre¬ 
sentatives  and  high  priests  of  “law  and  order,”  are  the  real  and  only  law 
breakers,  and  in  this  case  to  the  extent  of  murder.  It  is  well  that  the  peo¬ 
ple  know  this.  And  when  I  speak  of  the  people  I  don’t  mean  the  few  co¬ 
conspirators  of  Grinnell,  the  noble  politicians  who  thrive  upon  the  misery 
of  the  multitudes.  These  drones  may  constitute  the  State,  they  may  control 
the  State,  they  may  have  their  Grinnells,  their  Bonfields  and  other  hirelings ! 
No,  when  I  speak  of  the  people  I  speak  of  the  great  mass  of  human  bees, 
the  working  people,  who  unfortunately  are  not  yet  conscious  of  the  rascali¬ 
ties  that  are  perpetrated  in  the  “name  of  the  people,” — in  their  name. 

The  contemplated  murder  of  eight  men,  whose  only  crime  is  that  they 
have  dared  to  speak  the  truth,  may  open  the  eyes  of  these  suffering  millions ; 
may  wake  them  up.  Indeed,  I  have  noticed  that  our  conviction  has  worked 
miracles  in  this  direction  already.  The  class  that  clamors  for  our  lives,  the 
good,  devout  Christians,  have  attempted  in  every  way,  through  their  news¬ 
papers  and  otherwise,  to  conceal  the  true  and  only  issue  in  this  case.  By 
simply  designating  the  defendants  as  Anarchists,  and  picturing  them  as  a 
newly  discovered  tribe  or  species  of  cannibals,  and  by  inventing  shocking 
and  horrifying  stories  of  dark  conspiracies  said  to  be  planned  by  them — • 
these  good  Christians  zealously  sought  to  keep  the  naked  fact  from  the 
working  people  and  other  righteous  parties,  namely :  That  on  the  evening  of 
May  4,  two  hundred  armed  men,  under  the  command  of  a  notorious  ruffian, 
attacked  a  meeting  of  peaceable  citizens!  With  what  intention?  With  the 
intention  of  murdering  them,  or  as  many  of  them  as  they  could.  I  refer  to 
the  testimony  given  by  two  of  our  witnesses.  The  wage  workers  of  this  city 
began  to  object  to  being  fleeced  too  much — they  began  to  say  some  very  true 
things,  but  they  were  highly  disagreeable  to  our  Patrician  class ;  they  put 
forth — well,  some  very  modest  demands.  They  thought  eight  hours  hard 
toil  a  day  for  scarcely  two  hours’  pay  was  enough.  This  “lawless  rabble” 
had  to  be  silenced !  The  only  way  to  silence  them  was  to  frighten  them, 
and  murder  those  whom  they  looked  up  to  as  their  leaders.  Yes,  these 
“foreign  dogs”  had  to  be  taught  a  lesson,  so  that  they  might  never  again 
interfere  with  the  high-handed  exploitation  of  their  benevolent  and  Chris¬ 
tian  masters.  Bonfield,  the  man  who  would  bring  a  blush  of  shame  to  the 
managers  of  the  St.  Bartholomew  night — Bonfield,  the  illustrious  gentleman 
with  a  visage  that  would  have  done  excellent  service  to  Dore  in  portraying 
Dante’s  fiends  of  hell — Bonfield  was  the  man  best  fitted  to  consummate  the 
conspiracy  of  the  Citizens’  Association,  of  our  Patricians.  If  I  had  thrown 
that  bomb,  or  had  caused  it  to  be  thrown,  or  had  known  of  it,  I  would  not 
hesitate  a  moment  to  say  so.  It  is  true  that  a  number  of  lives  were  lost — 
many  were  wounded.  But  hundreds  of  lives  were  thereby  saved  !  But  for 
that  bomb,  there  would  have  been  a  hundred  widows  and  hundreds  of 
orphans  where  now  there  are  a  few.  These  facts  have  been  carefully  sup¬ 
pressed,  and  we  were  accused  and  convicted  of  conspiracy  by  the  real  con¬ 
spirators  and  their  agents.  This,  your  honor,  is  one  reason  why  sentence 
should  not  be  passed  by  a  court  of  justice — if  that  name  has  any  significance 
at  all. 

“But,”  says  the  State,  “you  have  published  articles  on  the  manufacture 
of  dynamite  and  bombs.”  Show  me  a  daily  paper  in  this  city  that  has  not 
published  similar  articles !  I  remember  very  distinctly  a  long  article  in  the 
Chicago  Tribune  of  February  23,  1885.  The  paper  contained  a  description 
and  drawings  of  different  kinds  of  infernal  machines  and  bombs.  I  remem¬ 
ber  this  one  especially,  because  I  bought  the  paper  on  a  railroad  train,  and 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


13 


had  ample  time  to  read  it.  But  since  that  time  the  Time s  has  often  pub¬ 
lished  similar  articles  on  the  subject,  and  some  of  the  dynamite  articles  found 
in  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung  were  translated  articles  from  the  Times,  written  by 
Generals  Molineux  and  Fitz  John  Porter,  in  which  the  use  of  dynamite 
bombs  against  striking  workingmen  is  advocated  as  the  most  effective  weap¬ 
on  against  them.  May  I  learn  why  the  editors  of  these  papers  have  not 
been  indicted  and  convicted  for  murder?  Is  it  because  they  have  advocated 
the  use  of  this  destructive  agent  only  against  the  “common  rabble?”  I  seek 
information.  Why  was  Mr.  Stone  of  the  News  not  made  a  defendant  in 
this  case?  In  his  possession  was  found  a  bomb.  Besides  that  Mr.  Stone 
published  an  article  in  January  which  gave  full  information  regarding  the 
manufacture  of  bombs.  Upon  this  information  any  man  could  prepare  a 
bomb  ready  for  use  at  the  expense  of  not  more  than  ten  cents.  The  News 
probably  has  ten  times  the  circulation  of  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung.  Is  it  not  like¬ 
ly  that  the  bomb  used  on  May  4  was  one  made  after  the  News’  pattern? 
As  long  as  these  men  are  not  charged  with  murder  and  convicted,  I  insist, 
your  honor,  that  such  discrimination  in  favor  of  capital  is  incompatible  with 
justice,  and  sentence  should  therefore  not  be  passed. 

Grinnell’s  main  argument  against  the  defendants  was — “They  were  for¬ 
eigners  ;  they  were  not  citizens.”  I  cannot  speak  for  the  others.  I  will  only 
speak  for  myself.  I  have  been  a  resident  of  this  State  fully  as  long  as  Grin¬ 
ned,  and  probably  have  been  as  good  a  citizen — at  least,  I  should  not  wish 
to  be  compared  with  him.  Grinned  has  incessantly  appealed  to  the  patriot¬ 
ism  of  the  jury.  To  that  I  reply  in  the  language  of  Johnson,  the  English 
litterateur,  “an  appeal  to  patriotism  is  the  last  resort  of  a  scoundrel.” 

My  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  disinherited  and  disfranchised  millions,  my 
agitation  in  this  direction,  the  popularization  of  economic  teachings — in  short, 
the  education  of  the  wage  workers,  is  declared  “a  conspiracy  against  so¬ 
ciety/’  The  word  “society”  is  here  wisely  substituted  for  “the  State,”  as 
represented  by  the  Patricians  of  today.  It  has  always  been  the  opinion  of 
the  ruling  classes  that  the  people  must  be  kept  in  ignorance,  for  they  lose 
their  servility,  their  modesty  and  their  obedience  to  the  powers  that  be,  as 
their  intelligence  increases.  The  education  of  a  black  slave  a  quarter  of  a 
century  ago  was  a  criminal  offense.  Why?  Because  the  intelligent  slave 
would  throw  off  his  shackles  at  whatever  cost.  Why  is  the  education  of  the 
working  people  of  today  looked  upon  by  a  certain  class  as  an  offense  against 
the  State?  For  the  same  reason!  The  State,  however,  wisely  avoided  this 
point  in  the  prosecution  of  this  case.  From  their  testimony  one  is  forced 
to  conclude  that  we  had,  in  our  speeches  and  publications,  preached  nothing 
else  but  destruction  and  dynamite.  The  court  has  this  morning  stated  that 
there  is  no  case  in  history  like  this.  I  have  noticed,  during  this  trial,  that 
the  gentlemen  of  the  legal  profession  are  not  well  versed  in  history.  In  all 
historical  cases  of  this  kind  truth  had  to  be  perverted  by  the  priests  of  the 
established  power  that  was  nearing  its  end. 

What  have  we  said  in  our  speeches  and  publications? 

We  have  interpreted  to  the  people  their  conditions  and  relations  in  so¬ 
ciety.  We  have  explained  to  them  the  different  social  phenomena  and  the 
social  laws  and  circumstances  under  which  they  occur.  We  have,  by  way 
of  scientific  investigation,  incontrovertibly  proved  and  brought  to  their  knowl¬ 
edge  that  the  system  of  wages  is  the  root  of  the  present  social  iniquities — 
iniquities  so  monstrous  that  they  cry  to  heaven.  We  have  further  said 
that  the  wage  system,  as  a  specific  form  of  social  development,  would,  by 
the  necessity  of  logic,  have  to  give  way  to  higher  forms  of  civilization ; 
that  the  wage  system  must  furnish  the  foundation  for  a  social  system  of 
co-operation — that  is,  Socialism.  That  whether  this  or  that  theory,  this  or 
that  scheme  regarding  future  arrangements  were  accepted  was  not  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  choice,  but  one  of  historical  necessity,  and  that  to  us  the  tendency 


14 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


of  progress  seemed  to  be  Anarchism — that  is,  a  free  society  without  kings 
or  classes — a  society  of  sovereigns  in  which  liberty  and  economic  equality 
of  all  would  furnish  an  unshakable  equilibrium  as  a  foundation  for  natural 
order. 

It  is  not  likely  that  the  honorable  Bonfield  and  Grinnell  can  conceive  of 
a  social  order  not  held  intact  by  the  policeman’s  club  and  pistol,  nor  of  a 
free  society  without  prisons,  gallows,  and  State’s  attorneys.  In  such  a  so¬ 
ciety  they  probably  fail  to  find  a  place  for  themselves.  And  is  this  the 
reason  why  Anarchism  is  such  a  “pernicious  and  damnable  doctrine?” 

Grinnell  has  intimated  to  us  that  Anarchism  was  on  trial.  The  theory 
of  Anarchism  belongs  to  the  realm  of  speculative  philosophy.  There  was 
not  a  syllable  said  about  Anarchism  at  the  Haymarket  meeting.  At  that 
meeting  the  very  popular  theme  of  reducing  the  hours  of  toil  was  discussed. 
But,  “Anarchism  is  on  trial !”  foams  Mr.  Grinnell.  If  that  is  the  case,  your 
honor,  very  well;  you  may  sentence  me,  for  I  am  an  Anarchist.  I  believe 
with  Buckle,  with  Paine,  Jefferson,  Emerson,  and  Spencer,  and  many  other 
great  thinkers  of  this  century,  that  the  state  of  castes  and  classes — the  state 
where  one  class  dominates  over  and  lives  upon  the  labor  of  another  class, 
and  calls  this  order— yes,  I  believe  that  this  barbaric  form  of  social  organi¬ 
zation,  with  its  legalized  plunder  and  murder,  is  doomed  to  die,  and  make 
room  for  a  free  society,  voluntary  association,  or  universal  brotherhood,  if 
you  like.  You  may  pronounce  the  sentence  upon  me,  honorable  judge,  but 
let  the  world  know  that  in  A.  D.  1886,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  eight  men 
were  sentenced  to  death,  because  they  believed  in  a  better  future;  because 
they  had  not  lost  their  faith  in  the  ultimate  victory  of  liberty  and  justice! 

“You  have  taught  the  destruction  of  society  and  civilization,”  says  the 
tool  and  agent  of  the  Bankers’  and  Citizens’  Association,  Grinnell.  That 
man  has  yet  to  learn  what  civilization  is.  It  is  the  old,  old  argument  against 
human  progress.  Read  the  history  of  Greece,  of  Rome;  read  that  of  Venice; 
look  over  the  dark  pages  of  the  church,  and  follow  the  thorny  path  of  sci¬ 
ence.  “No  change!  No  change!  You  would  destroy  society  and  civilization!” 
has  ever  been  the  cry  of  the  ruling  classes.  They  are  so  comfortably  situ¬ 
ated  under  the  prevailing  system  that  they  naturally  abhor  and  fear  even 
the  slightest  change.  Their  privileges  are  as  dear  to  them  as  life  itself,  and 
every  change  threatens  these  privileges.  But  civilization  is  a  ladder  whose 
steps  are  monuments  of  such  changes !  Without  these  social  changes — all 
brought  about  against  the  will  and  the  force  of  the  ruling  classes — there 
would  be  no  civilization.  As  to  the  destruction  of  society  which  we  have 
been  accused  of  seeking,  sounds  this  not  like  one  of  Aesop’s  fables — like  the 
cunning  of  the  fox?  We,  who  have  jeopardized  our  lives  to  save  society 
from  the  fiend — the  fiend  who  has  grasped  her  by  the  throat;  who  sucks  her 
life-blood,  who  devours  her  children — we,  who  would  heal  her  bleeding 
wounds,  who  would  free  her  from  the  fetters  you  have  wrought  around 
her;  from  the  misery  you  have  brought  upon  her — we  her  enemies!!  Hon¬ 
orable  judge,  the  demons  of  hell  will  join  in  the  laughter  this  irony  provokes! 

“We  have  preached  dynamite!”  Yes,  we  have  predicted  from  the  les¬ 
sons  history  teaches,  that  the  ruling  classes  of  today  would  no  more  listen 
to  the  voice  of  reason  than  their  predecessors;  that  they  would  attempt  by 
brute  force  to  stay  the  wheels  of  progress.  Is  it  a  lie,  or  was  it  the  truth 
we  told?  Are  not  the  large  industries  of  this  once  free  country  already 
conducted  under  the  surveillance  of  the  police,  the  detectives,  the  mili¬ 
tary  and  the  sheriffs  —  and  is  this  return  to  militancy  not  develop¬ 
ing  from  day  to  day?  American  sovereigns  —  think  of  it  —  work¬ 
ing  like  galley  convicts  under  military  guards!  We  have  predicted  this, 
and  predict  that  soon  these  conditions  will  grow  unbearable.  What  then? 
The  mandate  of  the  feudal  lords  of  our  time  is  slavery,  starvation,  and 
death!  This  has  been  their  program  for  years.  We  have  said  to  the  toil- 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


15 


ers,  that  science  had  penetrated  the  mystery  of  nature — that  from  Jove’s 
head  once  more  has  sprung  a  Minerva — dynamite!  If  this  declaration  is 
synonymous  with  murder,  why  not  charge  those  with  the  crime  to  whom 
we  owe  the  invention? 

To  charge  us  with  an  attempt  to  overthrow  the  present  system  on  or 
about  May  4,  by  force,  and  then  establish  Anarchy,  is  too  absurd  a  state¬ 
ment,  I  think,  even  for  a  political  office  holder  to  make.  If  Grinnell  believed 
that  we  attempted  such  a  thing,  why  did  he  not  have  Dr.  Bluthardt  make  an 
inquiry  as  to  our  sanity?  Only  mad  men  could  have  planned  such  a  brilliant 
scheme,  and  mad  people  cannot  be  indicted  or  convicted  of  murder.  If  there 
had  existed  anything  like  a  conspiracy  or  a  pre-arrangement,  does  your  honor 
believe  that  events  would  not  have  taken  a  different  course  than  they  did  on 
that  evening  and  later?  This  “conspiracy”  nonsense  is  based  upon  an  ora¬ 
tion  I  delivered  on  the  anniversary  of  Washington’s  birthday  at  Grand  Rap¬ 
ids,  Mich.,  more  than  a  year  and  a  half  ago.  I  had  been  invited  by  the 
Knights  of  Labor  for  that  purpose.  I  dwelt  upon  the  fact  that  our  country 
was  far  from  being  what  the  great  revolutionists  of  the  last  century  intended 
it  to  be.  I  said  that  those  men,  if  they  lived  today,  would  clean  the  Augean 
stables  with  iron  brooms,  and  that  they,  too,  would  undoubtedly  be  char¬ 
acterized  as  “wild  Socialists.”  It  is  not  unlikely  that  I  said  Washington 
would  have  been  hanged  for  treason  if  the  revolution  had  failed.  Grinnell 
made  this  “sacrilegious  remark”  his  main  arrow  against  me.  Why?  Be¬ 
cause  he  intended  to  inveigh  the  know-nothing  spirit  against  us.  But  who 
will  deny  the  correctness  of  the  statement?  That  I  should  have  compared 
myself  with  Washington,  is  a  base  lie.  But  if  I  had,  would  that  be  murder? 
I  may  have  told  that  individual  who  appeared  here  as  a  witness  that  the 
workingmen  should  procure  arms,  as  force  would  in  all  probability  be  the 
ultima  ratio  regum ;  and  that  in  Chicago  there  were  so  and  so  many  armed, 
but  I  certainly  did  not  say  that  we  proposed  to  “inaugurate  the  social  revolu¬ 
tion.”  And  let  me  say  here :  Revolutions  are  no  more  made  than  earthquakes 
and  cyclones.  Revolutions  are  the  effect  of  certain  causes  and  conditions.  I 
have  made  social  philosophy  a  specific  study  for  more  than  ten  years,  and  I 
could  not  have  given  vent  to  such  nonsense !  I  do  believe,  however,  that  the 
revolution  is  near  at  hand — in  fact,  that  it  is  upon  us.  But  is  the  physician 
responsible  for  the  death  of  the  patient  because  he  foretold  that  death?  If 
any  one  is  to  be  blamed  for  the  coming  revolution  it  is  the  ruling  class  who 
steadily  refuses  to  make  concessions  as  reforms  become  necessary;  who 
maincain  that  they  can  call  a  halt  to  progress,  and  dictate  a  standstill  to 
the  eternal  forces  of  which  they  themselves  are  but  the  whimsical  creation. 

The  position  generally  taken  in  this  case  is  that  we  are  morally  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  police  riot  on  May  4.  Four  or  five  years  ago  I  sat  in  this  very 
court  room  as  a  witness.  The  workingmen  had  been  trying  to  obtain  re¬ 
dress  in  a  lawful  manner.  They  had  voted  and,  among  others,  had  elected 
their  aldermanic  candidate  from  the  fourteenth  ward.  But  the  street  car 
company  did  not  like  the  man.  And  two  of  the  three  election  judges  of 
one  precinct,  knowing  this,  took  the  ballot  box  to  their  home  and  “corrected” 
the  election  returns,  so  as  to  cheat  the  constituents  of  the  elected  candidate 
of  their  rightful  representative  and  give  the  representation  to  the  benevo¬ 
lent  street  car  monopoly.  The  workingmen  spent  $1,500  in  the  prosecution 
of  the  perpetrators  of  this  crime.  The  proof  against  them  was  so  over¬ 
whelming  that  they  confessed  to  having  falsified  the  returns  and  forged 
the  official  documents.  Judge  Gardner,  who  was  presiding  in  this  court, 
acauitted  them,  stating  that  “that  act  had  apnarently  not  been  prompted  by 
criminal  intent.”  I  will  make  no  comment.  But  when  we  approach  the  field 
of  moral  responsibility,  it  has  an  immense  scope!  Every  man  who  has  in 
the  past  assisted  in  thwarting  the  efforts  of  those  seeking  reform  is  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  existence  of  the  revolutionists  in  this  city  today !  Those,  how- 


16 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


ever,  who  have  sought  to  bring  about  reforms  must  be  exempted  from  the 
responsibility — and  to  these  I  belong. 

If  the  verdict  is  based  upon  the  assumption  of  moral  responsibility,  your 
honor,  I  give  this  as  a  reason  why  sentence  should  not  be  passed. 

If  the  opinion  of  the  court  given  this  morning  is  good  law,  then  there 
is  no  person  in  this  country  who  could  not  lawfully  be  hanged.  I  vouch 
that,  upon  the  very  laws  you  have  read,  there  is  no  person  in  this  court 
room  now  who  could  not  be  “fairly,  impartially  and  lawfully”  hanged ! 
Fouche,  Napoleon's  right  bower,  once  said  to  his  master:  “Give  me  a  line 
that  any  one  man  has  ever  written,  and  I  will  bring  him  to  the  scaffold.” 
And  this  court  has  done  essentially  the  same.  Upon  that  law  every  person 
in  this  country  can  be  indicted  for  conspiracy,  and,  as  the  case  may  be,  for 
murder.  Every  member  of  a  trade  union,  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  or  any 
other  labor  organization,  can  be  convicted  of  conspiracj',  and  in  cases  of 
violence,  for  which  they  may  not  be  responsible  at  all,  of  murder,  as  we 
have  been.  This  precedent  once  established,  you  force  the  masses  who 
are  now  agitating  in  a  peaceable  way  into  open  rebellion !  You  thereby 
shut  off  the  last  safety  valve — and  the  blood  which  will  be  shed,  the  blood 
of  the  innocent — it  will  come  upon  your  heads ! 

“Seven  policemen  have  died,”  said  Grinnell,  suggestively  winking  at  the 
jury.  You  want  a  life  for  a  life,  and  have  convicted  an  equal  number  of 
men,  of  whom  it  cannot  be  truthfully  said  that  they  had  anything  whatever 
to  do  with  the  killing  of  Bonfield’s  victims.  The  very  same  principle  of 
jurisprudence  we  find  among  various  savage  tribes.  Injuries  among  them 
are  equalized,  so  to  speak.  The  Chinooks  and  the  Arabs,  for  instance,  would 
demand  the  life  of  an  enemy  for  every  death  that  they  had  suffered  at  their 
enemy’s  hands.  They  were  not  particular  in  regard  to  the  persons,  just  so 
long  as  they  had  a  life  for  a  life.  This  principle  also  prevails  today  among 
the  natives  of  the  Sandwich  Islands.  If  we  are  to  be  hanged  on  this  prin¬ 
ciple,  then  let  us  know  it,  and  let  the  world  know  what  a  civilized  and 
Christian  country  it  is  in  which  the  Goulds,  the  Vanderbilts,  the  Stanfords, 
the  Fields,  Armours,  and  other  local  money  hamsters  have  come  to  the  rescue 
of  liberty  and  justice! 

Grinnell  has  repeatedly  stated  that  our  country  is  an  enlightened  coun¬ 
try.  The  verdict  fully  corroborates  the  assertion !  This  verdict  against  us 
is  the  anathema  of  the  wealthy  classes  over  their  despoiled  victims — the  vast 
army  of  wage  workers  and  farmers.  If  your  honor  would  not  have  these 
people  believe  this ;  if  you  would  not  have  them  believe  that  we  have  once 
more  arrived  at  the  Spartan  Senate,  the  Athenian  Areopagus,  the  Venetian 
Council  of  Ten,  etc.,  then  sentence  should  not  be  pronounced.  But,  if  you 
think  that  by  hanging  us  you  can  stamp  out  the  labor  movement — the  move¬ 
ment  from  which  the  downtrodden  millions,  the  millions  who  toil  and  live 
in  want  and  misery,  the  wage  slaves,  expect  salvation — if  this  is  your  opin¬ 
ion,  then  hang  us !  Here  you  will  tread  upon  a  spark,  but  here,  and  there, 
and  behind  you,  and  in  front  of  you,  and  everywhere,  flames  will  blaze  up. 
It  is  a  subterranean  fire.  You  cannot  put  it  out.  The  ground  is  on  fire 
upon  which  you  stand.  You  can’t  understand  it.  You  don’t  believe  in  mag¬ 
ical  arts,  as  your  grandfathers  did,  who  burned  witches  at  the  stake,  but 
you  do  believe  in  conspiracies ;  you  believe  that  all  these  occurrences  of  late 
are  the  work  of  conspirators!  You  resemble  the  child  that  is  looking  for 
his  picture  behind  the  mirror.  What  you  see,  and  what  you  try  to  grasp  is 
nothing  but  the  deceptive  reflex  of  the  stings  of  your  bad  conscience.  You 
want  to  “stamp  out  the  conspirators” — the  “agitators?”  Ah,  stamp  out 
every  factory  lord  who  has  grown  wealthy  upon  the  unpaid  labor  of  his 
employes.  Stamp  out  every  landlord  who  has  amassed  fortunes  from  the 
rent  of  overburdened  workingmen  and  farmers.  Stamp  out  every  machine 
that  is  revolutionizing  industry  and  agriculture,  that  intensifies  the  produc- 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


17 


tion,  ruins  the  producer,  that  increases  the  national  wealth,  while  the  creator 
of  all  these  things  stands  amidst  them  tantalized  with  hunger !  Stamp  out 
the  railroads,  the  telegraph,  the  telephone,  steam  and  yourselves — for  every¬ 
thing  breathes  the  revolutionary  spirit. 

You,  gentlemen,  are  the  revolutionists!  You  rebel  against  the  effects  of 
social  conditions  which  have  tossed  you,  by  the  fair  hand  of  Fortune,  into  a 
magnificent  paradise.  Without  inquiring,  you  imagine  that  no  one  else  has  a 
right  in  that  place.  You  insist  that  you  are  the  chosen  ones,  the  sole  propri¬ 
etors.  The  forces  that  tossed  you  into  the  paradise,  the  industrial  forces,  are 
still  at  work.  They  are  growing  more  active  and  intense  from  day  to  day. 
Their  tendency  is  to  elevate  all  mankind  to  the  same  level,  to  have  all  hu¬ 
manity  share  in  the  paradise  you  now  monopolize.  You,  in  your  blindness, 
think  you  can  stop  the  tidal  wave  of  civilization  and  human  emancipation  by 
placing  a  few  policemen,  a  few  gatling  guns,  and  some  regiments  of  militia 
on  the  shore — you  think  you  can  frighten  the  rising  waves  back  into  the  un¬ 
fathomable  depths,  whence  they  have  arisen,  by  erecting  a  few  gallows  in  the 
perspective.  You,  who  oppose  the  natural  course  of  things,  you  are  the  real 
revolutionists.  You  and  you  alone  are  the  conspirators  and  destructionists ! 

Said  the  court  yesterday,  in  referring  to  the  Board  of  Trade  demonstra¬ 
tion  :  “These  men  started  out  with  the  express  purpose  of  sacking  the  Board 
of  Trade  building.”  While  I  can’t  see  what  sense  there  would  have  been  in 
such  an  undertaking,  and  while  I  know  that  the  said  demonstration  was 
arranged  simply  as  a  means  of  propaganda  against  the  system  that  legalizes 
the  respectable  business  carried  on  there,  I  will  assume  that  the  three  thou¬ 
sand  workingmen  who  marched  in  that  procession  really  intended  to  sack  the 
building.  In  this  case  they  would  have  differed  from  the  respectable  Board  of 
Trade  men  only  in  this — that  they  sought  to  recover  property  in  an  unlawful 
way,  while  the  others  sack  the  entire  country  lawfully  and  unlawfully — this 
being  their  highly  respectable  profession.  This  court  of  “justice  and  equity” 
proclaims  the  principle  that  when  two  persons  do  the  same  thing,  it  is  not 
the  same  thing.  I  thank  the  court  for  this  confession.  It  contains  all  that  we 
have  taught  and  for  which  we  are  to  be  hanged,  in  a  nutshell !  Theft  is  a 
respectable  profession  when  practiced  by  the  privileged  class.  It  is  a  felony 
when  resorted  to  in  self-preservation  by  the  other  class.  Rapine  and  pillage 
are  the  order  of  a  certain  class  of  gentlemen  who  find  this  mode  of  earning 
a  livelihood  easier  and  preferable  to  honest  labor — this  is  the  kind  of  order 
we  have  attempted,  and  are  now  trying,  and  will  try  as  long  as  we  live  to  do 
away  with.  Look  upon  the  economic  battlefields !  Behold  the  carnage  and 
plunder  of  the  Christian  Patricians!  Accompany  me  to  the  quarters  of  the 
wealth  creators  in  this  city.  Go  with  me  to  the  half-starved  miners  of  the 
Hocking  Valley.  Look  at  the  pariahs  in  the  Monongahela  Valley,  and  many 
other  mining  districts  in  this  country,  or  pass  along  the  railroads  of  that 
great  and  most  orderly  and  law-abiding  citizen,  Jay  Gould.  And  then  tell  me 
whether  this  order  has  in  it  any  moral  principle  for  which  it  should  be  pre¬ 
served.  I  say  that  the  preservation  of  such  an  order  is  criminal — is  murder¬ 
ous.  It  means  the  preservation  of  the  systematic  destruction  of  children  and 
women  in  factories.  It  means  the  preservation  of  enforced  idleness  of  large 
armies  of  men,  and  their  degradation.  It  means  the  preservation  of  intem¬ 
perance,  and  sexual  as  well  as  intellectual  prostitution.  It  means  the  preser¬ 
vation  of  misery,  want  and  servility  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  dangerous  ac¬ 
cumulation  of  spoils,  idleness,  voluptuousness  and  tyranny  on  the  other.  It 
means  the  preservation  of  vice  in  every  form.  And  last  but  not  least,  it 
means  the  preservation  of  the  class  struggle,  of  strikes,  riots  and  bloodshed. 
That  is  your  “order,”  gentlemen.  Yes,  and  it  is  worthy  of  you  to  be  the 
champions  of  such  an  order.  You  are  eminently  fitted  for  that  role.  You 
have  my  compliments ! 


18 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


Grinnell  spoke  of  Victor  Hugo.  I  need  not  repeat  what  he  said,*  but 
will  answer  him  in  the  language  of  one  of  our  German  philosophers:  “Our 
bourgeoisie  erect  monuments  in  honor  of  the  memory  of  the  classics.  If 
they  had  read  them  they  would  burn  them !”  Why,  amongst  the  articles  read 
here  from  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung,  put  in  evidence  by  the  State,  by  which  they 
intend  to  convince  the  jury  of  the  dangerous  character  of  the  accused  An¬ 
archists,  is  an  extract  from  Goethe’s  Faust, 

“Es  erben  sich  Gesetz  und  Rechte, 

Wie  eine  ew’ge  Krankheit  fort,”  etc. 

(Laws  and  class  privileges  are  transmitted  like  an  hereditary  disease.)  And 
Mr.  Ingham  in  his  speech  told  the  Christian  jurors  that  our  comrades,  the 
Paris  Communists,  had  in  1871,  dethroned  God,  the  Almighty,  and  had  put 
up  in  His  place  a  low  prostitute.  The  effect  was  marvelous !  The  good  Chris¬ 
tians  were  shocked.  I  wish  your  honor  would  inform  the  learned  gentlemen 
that  the  episode  related  occurred  in  Paris  nearly  a  century  ago,  and  that  the 
sacrilegious  perpetrators  were  the  co-temporaries  of  the  founders  of  this 
Republic — and  among  them  was  Thomas  Paine.  Nor  was  the  woman  a  pros¬ 
titute,  but  a  good  citoyenne  de  Paris,  who  served  on  that  occasion  simply  as 
an  allegory  of  the  goddess  of  reason. 

Referring  to  Most’s  letter,  read  here,  Mr.  Ingham  said :  “They,”  mean¬ 
ing  Most  and  myself,  “they  might  have  destroyed  thousands  of  innocent  lives 
in  the  Hocking  Valley  with  that  dynamite.”  I  have  said  all  I  know  about  the 
letter  on  the  witness  stand,  but  will  add  that  two  years  ago  I  went  through 
the  Hocking  Valley  as  a  correspondent.  While  there  I  saw  hundreds  of  lives 
in  the  process  of  slow  destruction,  gradual  destruction.  There  was  no  dyna¬ 
mite,  nor  were  they  Anarchists  who  did  that  diabolical  work.  It  was  the 
work  of  a  party  of  highly  respectable  monopolists,  law-abiding  citizens,  if  you 
please.  It  is  needless  to  say  the  murderers  were  never  indicted.  The  press 
had  little  to  say,  and  the  State  of  Ohio  assisted  them.  What  a  terror  it  would 
have  created  if  the  victims  of  this  diabolical  plot  had  resented  and  blown 
some  of  those  respectable  cut-throats  to  atoms !  When,  in  East  St.  Louis, 
Jay  Gould’s  hirelings,  “the  men  of  grit,”  shot  down  in  cold  blood  and  killed 
six  inoffensive  workingmen  and  women,  there  was  very  little  said,  and  the 
grand  jury  refused  to  indict  the  gentlemen.  It  was  the  same  way  in  Chicago, 
Milwaukee  and  other  places.  A  Chicago  furniture  manufacturer  shot  down 
and  seriously  wounded  two  striking  workingmen  last  spring.  He  was  held 
over  to  the  grand  jury.  The  grand  jury  refused  to  indict  the  gentleman. 
But  when,  on  one  occasion,  a  workingman  in  self-defense  resisted  the  mur¬ 
derous  attempt  of  the  police  and  threw  a  bomb  and  for  once  blood  flowed  on 
the  other  side,  then  a  terrific  howl  went  up  all  over  the  land :  “Conspiracy 
has  attacked  vested  rights !”  And  eight  victims  are  demanded  for  it.  There 
has  been  much  said  about  the  public  sentiment.  There  has  been  much  said 
about  the  public  clamor.  Why,  it  is  a  fact  that  no  citizen  dared  express  an¬ 
other  opinion  than  that  prescribed  by  the  authorities  of  the  State,  for  if  one 
had  done  otherwise,  he  would  have  been  locked  up ;  he  might  have  been  sent 
to  the  gallows  to  swing,  as  they  will  have  the  pleasure  of  doing  with  us,  if 
the  decree  of  our  “honorable  court”  is  consummated. 

“These  men,”  Grinnell  said  repeatedly,  “have  no  principles;  they  are 
common  murderers,  assassins,  robbers,”  etc.  I  admit  that  our  aspirations 
and  objects  are  incomprehensible  to  unprincipled  ruffians,  but  surely  for  this 
we  are  not  to  be  blamed.  The  assertion,  if  I  mistake  not,  was  based  upon  the 
ground  that  we  sought  to  destroy  property.  Whether  this  perversion  of  facts 
was  intentional,  I  know  not.  But  in  justification  of  our  doctrines  I  will  say 
that  the  assertion  is  an  infamous  falsehood.  Articles  have  been  read  here 
from  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung  and  Alarm  to  show  the  dangerous  characters  of 

*He  asserted  that  Victor  Hugo’s  writings  (of  which  he  knows  no  more 
than  the  average  Chicago  policeman)  were  not  revolutionary. 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


19 


the  defendants.  The  files  of  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung  and  Alarm  have  been 
searched  for  the  past  years.  Those  articles  which  generally  commented  upon 
some  atrocity  committed  by  the  authorities  upon  striking  workingmen  were 
picked  out  and  read  to  you.  Other  articles  were  not  read  to  the  court. 
Other  articles  were  not  what  was  wanted.  The  State’s  attorney  (who  well 
knows  that  he  tells  a  falsehood  when  he  says  it),  upon  those  articles  asserts 
that  “these  men  have  no  principles.” 

A  few  weeks  before  I  was  arrested  and  charged  with  the  crime  for  which 
I  have  been  convicted,  I  was  invited  by  the  clergyman  of  the  Congregational 
Church  to  lecture  upon  the  subject  of  Socialism,  and  debate  with  them.  This 
took  place  at  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel.  And  so  that  it  cannot  be  said  that 
after  I  have  been  arrested,  after  I  have  been  indicted,  and  after  I  have  been 
convicted,  I  have  put  together  some  principles  to  justify  my  action,  I  will 
read  what  I  said  then — 

Capt.  Black:  Give  the  date  of  the  paper. 

Mr.  Spies:  January  9,  1886. 

Capt.  Black:  What  paper,  the  Alarm t 

Mr.  Spies:  The  Alarm.  When  I  was  asked  upon  that  occasion  what 
Socialism  was,  I  said  this : 

“Socialism  is  simply  a  resume  of  the  phenomena  of  the  social  life  of 
the  past  and  present  traced  to  their  fundamental  causes,  and  brought  into 
logical  connection  with  one  another.  It  rests  upon  the  established  fact  that 
the  economic  conditions  and  institutions  of  a  people  from  the  ground  work 
of  all  their  social  conditions,  of  their  ideas — aye,  even  of  their  religion,  and 
further,  that  all  changes  of  economic  conditions,  every  step  in  advance,  arise 
from  the  struggles  between  the  dominating  and  dominated  class  in  differ¬ 
ent  ages.  You,  gentlemen,  cannot  place  yourselves  at  this  standpoint  of 
speculative  science;  your  profession  demands  that  you  occupy  the  opposite 
position ;  not  that  which  professes  acquaintance  with  things  as  they  actually 
exist,  but  which  presumes  a  thorough  understanding  of  matters  which  to 
ordinary  mortals  are  entirely  incomprehensible.  It  is  for  this  reason  that 
you  cannot  become  Socialists.  (Cries  of  ‘Oh!  oh!’)  Lest  you  should  be 
unable  to  exactly  grasp  my  meaning,  however,  I  will  now  state  the  matter 
a  little  more  plainly.  It  cannot  be  unknown  to  you  that  in  the  course  of 
this  century  there  have  appeared  an  infinite  number  of  inventions  and  dis¬ 
coveries,  which  have  brought  about  great,  aye,  astonishing  changes  in  the 
production  of  the  necessities  and  comforts  of  life.  The  work  of  machines 
has,  to  a  great  extent,  replaced  that  of  men. 

“Machinery  involves  a  great  accumulation  of  power,  and  always  a  greater 
division  of  labor  in  consequence. 

“The  advantages  resulting  from  this  centralization  of  production  were  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  cause  its  still  further  extension,  and  from  this  concen¬ 
tration  of  the  means  of  labor  and  of  the  operations  of  laborers,  while  the 
old  system  of  distribution  was  (and  is)  retained,  arose  those  improper  con¬ 
ditions  which  ail  society  today. 

“The  means  of  production  thus  came  into  the  hands  of  an  ever  decreas¬ 
ing  number,  while  the  actual  producers,  through  the  introduction  of  ma¬ 
chinery,  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  toil,  and  being  at  the  same  time 
disinherited  of  the  bounties  of  nature,  were  consigned  to  pauperism,  vaga¬ 
bondage — the  so-called  crime  and  prostitution — all  these  evils  which  you, 
gentlemen,  would  like  to  exorcise  with  your  little  prayer  book. 

“The  Socialists  award  your  efforts  a  jocular  rather  than  a  serious  at¬ 
tention  (symptoms  of  uneasiness)  otherwise,  pray,  let  us  know  how  much 
you  have  accomplished  so  far  by  your  moral  lecturing  toward  ameliorating 
the  condition  of  those  wretched  beings  who  through  bitter  want  have  been 
driven  to  crime  and  desperation?  (Here  several  gentlemen  sprang  to  their 
feet,  exclaiming,  ‘We  have  done  a  great  deal  in  some  directions!’)  Aye,  in 


20 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


some  cases  you  have  perhaps  given  a  few  alms;  but  what  influence  has  this, 
if  I  may  ask,  had  upon  societary  conditions,  or  in  effecting  any  change  in  the 
same?  Nothing;  absolutely  nothing.  You  may  as  well  admit  it,  gentlemen, 
for  you  cannot  point  me  out  a  single  instance. 

“Very  well.  The  proletarians  doomed  to  misery  and  hunger  through 
the  labor  saving  of  our  centralized  production,  whose  number  in  this  coun¬ 
try  we  estimate  at  about  a  million  and  a  half,  is  it  likely  that  they  and  the 
thousands  who  are  daily  joining  their  ranks,  and  the  millions  who  are  toiling 
for  a  miserable  pittance,  will  suffer  peacefully  and  with  Christian  resigna¬ 
tion  their  destruction  at  the  hands  of  their  thievish  and  murderous,  albeit 
very  Christian,  wage  masters?  They  will  defend  themselves.  It  will  come 
to  a  fight. 

“The  necessity  of  common  ownership  in  the  means  of  toil  will  be  real¬ 
ized,  and  the  era  of  Socialism,  of  universal  co-operation,  begins.  The  dispos¬ 
sessing  of  the  usurping  classes — the  socialization  of  these  possessions — and 
the  universal  co-operation  of  toil,  not  for  speculative  purposes,  but  for  the 
satisfaction  of  the  demands  which  we  make  upon  life ;  in  short  co-operative 
labor  for  the  purpose  of  continuing  life  and  of  enjoying  it  —  this  in  gen¬ 
eral  outlines,  is  Socialism.  This  is  not,  however,  as  you  might  suppose, 
a  mere  ‘beautifully  conceived  plan,’  the  realization  of  which  would  be  well 
worth  striving  for  if  it  could  only  be  brought  about.  No;  this  socialization 
of  the  means  of  production,  of  the  machinery  of  commerce,  of  the  land  and 
earth,  etc.,  is  not  only  something  desirable,  but  has  become  an  imperative 
necessity,  and  wherever  we  find  in  history  that  something  has  once  become 
a  necessity,  there  we  always  find  that  the  next  step  was  the  doing  away  with 
that  necessity  by  the  supplying  of  the  logical  want. 

“Our  large  factories  and  mines,  and  the  machinery  of  exchange  and 
transportation,  apart  from  every  other  consideration,  have  become  too  vast 
for  private  control.  Individuals  can  no  longer  monopolize  them. 

“Everywhere,  wherever  we  cast  our  eyes,  we  find  forced  upon  our  atten¬ 
tion  the  unnatural  and  injurious  effects  of  unregulated  private  production. 
We  see  how  one  man,  or  a  number  of  men,  have  not  only  brought  into  the 
embrace  of  their  private  ownership  a  few  inventions  in  technical  lines,  but 
have  also  confiscated  for  their  exclusive  advantage  all  natural  powers,  such 
as  water,  steam,  and  electricity.  Every  fresh  invention,  every  discovery  be¬ 
longs  to  them.  The  world  exists  for  them  only.  That  they  destroy  their 
fellow  beings  right  and  left  they  little  care.  That,  by  their  machinery,  they 
even  work  the  bodies  of  little  children  into  gold  pieces,  they  hold  to  be  an 
especially  good  work  and  a  genuine  Christian  act.  They  murder,  as  we  have 
said,  little  children  and  women  by  hard  labor,  while  they  let  strong  men  go 
hungry  for  lack  of  work. 

“People  ask  themselves  how  such  things  are  possible,  and  the  answer  is 
that  the  competitive  system  is  the  cause  of  it.  The  thought  of  a  co-opera¬ 
tive,  social,  rational,  and  well  regulated  system  of  management  irresistibly 
impresses  the  observer.  The  advantages  of  such  a  system  are  of  such  a 
convincing  kind,  so  patent  to  observation — and  where  could  there  be  any 
other  way  out  of  it?  According  to  physical  laws  a  body  always  moves  itself, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  along  the  line  of  least  resistance.  So  does  so¬ 
ciety  as  a  whole.  The  path  of  co-operative  labor  and  distribution  is  leveled 
by  the  concentration  of  the  means  of  labor  under  the  private  capitalistic 
system.  We  are  already  moving  right  in  that  track.  We  cannot  retreat  even 
if  we  would.  The  force  of  circumstances  drives  us  on  to  Socialism. 

“  ‘And  now,  Mr.  Spies,  won’t  you  tell  us  how  you  are  going  to  carry  out 
the  expropriation  of  the  possessing  classes?’  asked  Rev.  Dr.  Scudder. 

“  ‘The  answer  is  the  thing  itself.  The  key  is  furnished  by  the  storms 
raging  through  the  industrial  life  of  the  present.  You  see  how  penuriously 
the  owners  of  the  factories,  of  the  mines,  cling  to  their  privileges,  and  will 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


21 


not  yield  the  breadth  of  an  inch.  On  the  other  hand,  you  see  the  half-starved 
proletarians  driven  to  the  verge  of  violence/ 

“‘So  your  remedy  would  be  violence?’ 

“‘Remedy?  Well,  I  should  like  it  better  if  it  could  be  done  without 
violence,  bui  you,  gentlemen,  and  the  class  you  represent,  take  care  that  it 
cannot  be  accomplished  otherwise.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  workingmen  of 
today  go  to  their  employers,  and  say  to  them:  “Listen!  Your  administration 
of  affairs  doesn’t  suit  us  any  morb ;  it  leads  to  disastrous  consequences. 
While  one  part  of  us  are  worked  to  death,  the  others,  out  of  employment, 
are  starved  to  death ;  little  children  are  ground  to  death  in  the  factories, 
while  strong,  vigorous  men  remain  idle ;  the  masses  live  in  misery  while  a 
small  class  of  respectables  enjoy  luxury  and  wealth;  all  this  is  the  result 
of  your  maladministration,  which  will  bring  misfortune  even  to  yourselves ; 
step  down  and  out  now :  let  us  have  your  property,  which  is  nothing  but  un¬ 
paid  labor ;  we  shall  take  this  thing  in  our  own  hands ;  we  shall  administrate 
matters  satisfactorily,  and  regulate  the  institutions  of  society;  voluntarily  we 
shall  pay  you  a  life-long  pension.”  Now,  do  you  think  the  “bosses”  would 
accept  this  proposition?  You  certainly  don’t  believe  it.  Therefore  force  will 
have  to  decide — or  do  you  know  of  any  other  way?’ 

“  ‘So  you  are  organizing  a  revolution  ?’ 

“It  was  shortly  before  my  arrest,  and  I  answered :  ‘Such  things  are  hard 
to  organize.  A  revolution  is  a  sudden  upswelling — a  convulsion  of  the 
fevered  masses  of  society/ 

“We  are  preparing  society  for  that,  and  insist  upon  it  that  workingmen 
should  arm  themselves  and  keep  ready  for  the  struggle.  The  better  they  are 
armed  the  easier  will  the  battle  be,  and  the  less  the  bloodshed. 

“  ‘What  would  be  the  order  of  things  in  the  new  society?’ 

“  ‘I  must  decline  to  answer  this  question,  as  it  is,  till  now,  a  mere  matter 
of  speculation.  The  organization  of  labor  on  a  co-operative  basis  offers  no 
difficulties.  The  large  establishments  of  today  might  be  used  as  patterns. 
Those  who  will  have  to  solve  these  questions  will  expediently  do  it,  instead 
of  working  according  to  our  prescriptions — if  we  should  make  anything  of 
the  kind ;  they  will  be  directed  by  the  circumstances  and  conditions  of  the 
time,  and  these  are  beyond  our  horizon.  About  this  you  needn’t  trouble 
yourselves/ 

“  ‘But,  friend,  don’t  you  think  that  about  a  week  after  the  division,  the 
provident  will  have  all,  while  the  spendthrift  will  have  nothing?’ 

“‘The  question  is  out  of  order,’  interfered  the  chairman;  ‘there  was 
nothing  said  about  division.’ 

“Prof.  Wilcox:  ‘Don’t  you  think  the  introduction  of  Socialism  would 
destroy  all  individuality?’ 

“‘How  can  anything  be  destroyed  which  does  not  exist?  In  our  times 
there  is  no  individuality;  that  only  can  be  developed  under  Socialism,  when 
mankind  will  be  independent  economically.  Where  do  you  meet  today  with 
real  individuality?  Look  at  yourselves,  gentlemen!  You  don’t  dare  to  give 
utterance  to  any  subjective  opinion  which  might  not  suit  the  feelings  of  your 
bread  givers  and  customers.  You  are  hypocrites  (murmurs  of  indignation)  ; 
every  business  man  is  a  hypocrite.  Everywhere  is  mockery,  servility,  lies 
and  fraud.  And  the  laborers!  You  feign  anxiety  about  their  individuality; 
about  the  individuality  of  a  class  that  has  been  degraded  to  machines — used 
each  day  for  ten  or  twelve  hours  as  appendages  of  the  lifeless  machines  ! 
About  their  individuality  you  are  anxious  !’  ” 

Does  that  sound  as  though  I  had  at  that  time,  as  has  been  imputed  to 
me,  organized  a  revolution — a  so-called  social  revolution,  which  was  to  oc¬ 
cur  on  or  about  the  first  of  May  to  establish  Anarchy  in  place  of  our  present 
“ideal  order?”  I  guess  not. 

So  Socialism  does  not  mean  the  destruction  of  society.  Socialism  is  a 


22 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


constructive  and  not  a  destructive  science.  While  capitalism  expropriates 
the  masses  for  the  benefit  of  the  privileged  class;  while  capitalism  is  that 
school  of  economics  which  teaches  how  one  can  live  upon  the  labor  (i.  e., 
property)  of  others ;  Socialism  teaches  how  all  may  possess  property,  and 
further  teaches  that  every  man  must  work  honestly  for  his  own  living,  and 
not  be  playing  the  “respectable  board  of  trade  man,”  or  any  other  highly  (?) 
respectable  business  man  or  banker,  such  as  appeared  here  as  talesmen  in 
the  jurors’  box,  with  the  fixed  opinion  that  we  ought  to  be  hanged.  Indeed, 
I  believe  they  have  that  opinion !  Socialism,  in  short,  seeks  to  establish  a , 
universal  system  of  co-operation,  and  to  render  accessible  to  each  and  every 
member  of  the  human  family  the  achievements  and  benefits  of  civilization, 
which,  under  capitalism,  are  being  monopolized  by  a  privileged  class,  and 
employed,  not  as  they  should  be,  for  the  common  good  of  all,  but  for  the 
brutish  gratification  of  an  avaricious  class.  Under  capitalism  the  great  in¬ 
ventions  of  the  past,  far  from  being  a  blessing  for  mankind,  have  been  turned 
into  a  curse !  Under  Socialism  the  prophecy  of  the  Greek  poet,  Antiporas, 
would  be  fulfilled,  who,  at  the  invention  of  the  first  water  mill,  exclaimed : 
“This  is  the  emancipator  of  male  and  female  slaves;”  and  likewise  the  pre¬ 
diction  of  Aristotle,  who  said :  “When,  at  some  future  age,  every  tool,  upon 
command  or  predestination,  will  perform  its  work  as  the  art  works  of  Dae¬ 
dalus  did,  which  moved  by  themselves,  or  like  the  three  feet  of  Hephaestos 
which  went  to  their  sacred  work  instinctively,  when  thus  the  weaver  shuttles 
will  weave  by  themselves,  then  we  shall  no  longer  have  masters  and  slaves.” 
Socialism  says  this  time  has  come,  and  can  you  deny  it?  You  say:  “Oh, 
these  heathens,  what  did  they  know?”  True!  They  knew  nothing  of  political 
economy;  they  knew  nothing  of  Christendom.  They  failed  to  conceive  how 
nicely  these  men-emancipating  machines  could  be  employed  to  lengthen  the 
hours  of  toil  and  to  intensify  the  burdens  of  the  slaves.  These  heathens, 
yes,  they  excused  the  slavery  of  the  one  on  the  ground  that  thereby  another 
would  be  afforded  the  opportunity  of  human  development.  But  to  preach 
the  slavery  of  the  masses  in  order  that  a  few  rude  and  arrogant  parvenues 
might  become  “eminent  manufacturers,”  “extensive  packing  house  owners,” 
or  “influential  shoe  black  dealers” — to  do  this  they  lacked  that  specific  Chris¬ 
tian  organ. 

Socialism  teaches  that  the  machines,  the  means  of  transportation  and 
communication  are  the  result  of  the  combined  efforts  of  society,  past  and 
present,  and  that  they  are  therefore  rightfully  the  indivisible  property  of 
society,  just  the  same  as  the  soil  and  the  mines  and  all  natural  gifts  should 
be.  This  declaration  implies  that  those  who  have  appropriated  this  wealth 
wrongfully,  though  lawfully,  shall  be  expropriated  by  society.  The  expropri¬ 
ation  of  the  masses  by  the  monopolists  has  reached  such  a  degree  that  the 
expropriation  of  the  expropriators  has  become  an  imperative  necessity,  an 
act  of  social  self-preservation.  Society  will  reclaim  its  own,  even  though 
you  erect  a  gibbet  on  every  street  corner.  And  Anarchism,  this  terrible 
“ism,”  deduces  that  under  a  co-operative  organization  of  society,  under  eco¬ 
nomic  equality  and  individual  independence,  the  State — the  political  State — 
will  pass  into  barbaric  antiquity.  And  we  will  be  where  all  are  free,  where 
there  are  no  longer  masters  and  servants,  where  intellect  stands  for  brute 
force;  there  will  no  longer  be  any  use  for  the  policemen  and  militia  to  pre¬ 
serve  the  so-called  “peace  and  order” — the  order  that  the  Russian  general 
spoke  of  when  he  telegraphed  to  the  Czar  after  he  had  massacred  half  of 
Warsaw,  “Peace  reigns  in  Warsaw!” 

Anarchism  does  not  mean  bloodshed;  does  not  mean  robbery,  arson,  etc. 
These  monstrosities  are,  on  the  contrary,  the  characteristic  features  of  cap¬ 
italism.  Anarchism  means  peace  and  tranquillity  to  all.  Anarchism,  or  So¬ 
cialism,  means  the  re-organization  of  society  upon  scientific  principles  and 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


23 


the  abolition  of  causes  which  produce  vice  and  crime.  Capitalism  first  pro¬ 
duces  these  social  diseases  and  then  seeks  to  cure  them  by  punishment. 

The  court  has  had  a  great  deal  to  say  about  the  incendiary  character  of 
the  articles  read  from  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung.  Let  me  read  to  you  an  editorial 
which  appeared  in  the  Fond  du  Lac  Commonwealth ,  in  October,  1886,  a  Re¬ 
publican  paper.  If  I  am  not  mistaken  the  court  is  Republican,  too. 

“To  arms,  Republicans!  Work  in  every  town  in  Wisconsin  for  men  not 
afraid  of  firearms,  blood  or  dead  bodies,  to  preserve  peace  (that  is  the 
peace’  I  have  been  speaking  of)  and  quiet;  avoid  a  conflict  of  parties  to 
prevent  the  administration  of  public  affairs  from  falling  into  the  hands  of 
such  obnoxious  men  as  James  G.  Jenkins.  Every  Repuulican  in  Wisconsin 
should  go  armed  to  the  polls  next  election  day.  The  grain  stacks,  houses 
and  barns  of  active  Democrats  should  be  burned;  their  children  burned  and 
their  wives  outraged,  that  they  may  understand  that  the  Republican  party 
is  the  one  which  is  bound  to  rule,  and  the  one  which  they  should  vote  for,  or 
keep  their  vile  carcasses  away  from  the  polls.  If  they  still  persist  in  going 
to  the  polls,  and  persist  in  voting  for  Jenkins,  meet  them  on  the  road,  in 
the  bush,  on  the  hill,  or  anywhere,  and  shoot  every  one  of  these  base  cow¬ 
ards  and  agitators.  If  they  are  too  strong  in  any  locality,  and  succeed  in 
putting  their  opposition  votes  in  the  ballot  box,  break  open  the  box  and 
tear  in  shreds  their  discord-breathing  ballots.  Burn  them.  This  is  the  time 
for  effective  work.  Yellow  fever  will  not  catch  among  Morrison  Demo¬ 
crats;  so  we  must  use  less  noisy  and  more  effective  means.  The  agitators 
must  be  put  down,  and  whoever  opposes  us  does  so  at  his  peril.  Republicans, 
be  at  the  polls  in  accordance  with  the  above  directions,  and  don’t  stop  for 
a  little  blood.  That  which  made  the  solid  South  will  make  a  solid  North !” 

What  does  your  honor  say  to  these  utterances  of  a  “law  and  order”  or¬ 
gan — a  Republican  organ?  How  does  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung  compare  with 
this? 

The  book  of  John  Most,  which  was  introduced  in  court,  I  have  never 
read,  and  I  admit  that  passages  were  read  here  that  are  repulsive — that  must 
be  repulsive  to  any  person  who  has  a  heart.  But  I  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  these  passages  have  been  translated  from  a  publication  of  Andrieux, 
the  ex-prefect  of  police,  Paris,  by  an  exponent  of  your  order !  Have  the 
representatives  of  your  order  ever  stopped  at  the  sacrifice  of  human  blood? 
Never ! 

It  has  been  charged  that  we  (the  eight  here)  constituted  a  conspiracy. 
1  would  reply  to  that  that  my  friend  Lingg  I  had  seen  but  twice  at  meet¬ 
ings  of  the  Central  Labor  Union,  where  I  went  as  a  reporter,  before  I  was 
arrested.  I  had  never  spoken  to  him.  With  Engel,  I  have  not  been  on 
speaking  terms  for  at  least  a  year.  And  Fischer,  my  lieutenant  ( ?),  used 
to  go  around  and  make  speeches  against  me.  So  much  for  that. 

Your  honor  has  said  this  morning,  “we  must  learn  their  objects  from 
what  they  have  said  and  written,”  and  in.  pursuance  thereof  the  court  has 
read  a  number  of  articles. 

Now,  if  I  had  as  much  power  as  the  court,  and  were  a  law  abiding 
citizen,  1  would  certainly  have  the  court  indicted  for  some  remarks  made 
during  this  trial.  I  will  say  that  if  I  had  not  been  an  Anarchist  at  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  this  trial  I  would  be  one  now.  I  quote  the  exact  language  of 
the  court  on  one  occasion :  “It  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  all  laws  are 
foolish  and  bad  because  a  good  many  of  them  are  so.”  That  is  treason, 
sir !  if  we  are  to  believe  the  court  and  the  State’s  attorney.  But,  aside 
from  that,  I  cannot  see  how  we  shall  distinguish  the  good  from  the  bad 
laws.  Am  I  to  judge  of  that?  No;  I  am  not.  But  if  I  disobey  a  bad  law, 
and  am  brought  before  a  bad  judge,  I  undoubtedly  would  be  convicted. 

In  regard  to  a  report  in  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung,  also  read  this  morning, 
the  report  of  the  Board  of  Trade  demonstration,  I  would  say  (and  this  is 


24 


ADDRESS  OF  AUGUST  SPIES 


the  only  defense,  the  only  word  I  have  to  say  in  my  own  defense)  that  I 
did  not  know  of  that  article  until  I  saw  it  in  the  paper,  and  the  man  who 
wrote  it,  wrote  it  rather  as  a  reply  to  some  slurs  in  the  morning  papers. 
He  was  discharged.  The  language  used  in  that  article  would  never  have 
been  tolerated  if  I  had  seen  it. 

Now,  if  we  cannot  be  directly  implicated  with  this  affair,  connected 
with  the  throwing  of  the  bomb,  where  is  the  law  that  says,  these  men  shall 
be  picked  out  to  suffer?  Show  me  that  law  if  you  have  it!  If  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  court  is  correct,  then  half  of  the  population  of  this  city  ought 
to  be  hanged,  because  they  are  responsible  the  same  as  we  are  for  that  act 
on  May  4.  And  if  half  of  the  population  of  Chicago  is  not  hanged,  then 
show  me  the  law  that  says,  “eight  men  shall  be  picked  out  and  hanged  as 
scapegoats !”  You  have  no  good  law.  Your  decision,  your  verdict,  our 
conviction  is  nothing  but  an  arbitrary  will  of  this  lawless  court.  It  is  true 
there  is  no  precedent  in  jurisprudence  in  this  case !  It  is  true  we  have  called 
upon  the  people  to  arm  themselves.  It  is  true  that  we  told  them  time  and 
again  that  the  great  day  of  change  was  coming.  It  was  not  our  desire  to 
have  bloodshed.  We  are  not  beasts.  We  would  not  be  Socialists  if  we 
were  beasts.  It  is  because  of  our  sensitiveness  that  we  have  gone  into  this 
movement  for  the  emancipation  of  the  oppressed  and  suffering.  It  is  true 
we  have  called  upon  the  people  to  arm  and  prepare  for  the  stormy  times 
before  us. 

This  seems  to  be  the  ground  upon  which  the  verdict  is  to  be  sustained. 
“But  when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations  pursuing  invariably  the 
same  object  evinces  a  design  to  reduce  the  people  under  absolute  despot¬ 
ism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty  to  throw  off  such  government  and  pro¬ 
vide  new  guards  for  their  future  safety.”  This  is  a  quotation  from  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Have  we  broken  any  laws  by  showing  to  the 
people  how  these  abuses,  that  have  occurred  for  the  last  twenty  years,  are 
invariably  pursuing  one  object,  viz:  to  establish  an  oligarchy  in  this  coun¬ 
try  so  strong  and  powerful  and  monstrous  as  never  before  has  existed  in 
any  country?  I  can  well  understand  why  that  man  Grinnell  did  not  urge 
upon  the  grand  jury  to  charge  us  with  treason.  I  can  well  understand  it. 
You  cannot  try  and  convict  a  man  for  treason  who  has  upheld  the  con¬ 
stitution  against  those  who  trample  it  under  their  feet.  It  would  not  have 
been  as  easy  a  job  to  do  that,  Mr.  Grinnell,  as  to  charge  these  men  with 
murder. 

Now,  these  are  my  ideas.  They  constitute  a  j>art  of  myself.  I  cannot 
divest  myself  of  them,  nor  would  I,  if  I  could.  And  if  you  think  that  you 
can  crush  out  these  ideas  that  are  gaining  ground  more  and  more  every 
day;  if  you  think  you  can  crush  them  out  by  sending  us  to  the  gallows;  if 
you  would  once  more  have  people  suffer  the  penalty  of  death  because  they 
have  dared  to  tell  the  truth — and  I  defy  you  to  show  us  where  we  have 
told  a  lie — I  say,  if  death  is  the  penalty  for  proclaiming  the  truth,  then  I 
will  proudly  and  defiantly  pay  the  costly  price!  Call  your  hangman!  Truth 
crucified  in  Socrates,  in  Christ,  in  Giordano  Bruno,  in  Huss,  in  Galileo, 
still  lives — they  and  others  whose  number  is  legion  have  preceded  us  on 
this  path.  We  are  ready  to  follow! 


cADDRESS  OF  MICHAEL  SCHWAB 

It  is  not  much  I  have  to  say.  And  I  would  say  nothing  at  all  if  keep¬ 
ing  silent  did  not  look  like  a  cowardly  approval  of  what  has  been  done 
here.  To  term  the  proceedings  during  the  trial  justice,  would  be  a  sneer. 
Justice  has  not  been  done,  more  than  this,  could  not  be  done.  If  one  class 
is  arrayed  against  the  other,  it  is  idle  and  hypocritical  to  think  about  justice. 
Anarchy  was  on  trial,  as  the  State’s  attorney  put  it  in  his  closing  speech;  a 
doctrine,  an  opinion,  hostile  to  brute  force,  hostile  to  our  present  murder¬ 
ous  system  of  production  and  distribution.  I  am  condemned  to  die  for 
writing  newspaper  articles  and  making  speeches.  The  State’s  attorney 
knows  as  well  as  I  do  that  that  alleged  conversation  between  Mr.  Spies 
and  myself  never  took  place.  He  knows  a  good  deal  more  than  that.  He 
knows  of  all  the  beautiful  work  of  his  organizer,  Furthman.  When  I  was 
before  the  coroner’s  jury,  two  or  three  detectives  swore  very  positively  to 
having  seen  me  at  the  Haymarket  when  Mr.  Parsons  finished  his  speech. 
I  suppose  they  wanted  at  that,  time  to  fix  the  bomb  throwing  on  me ;  for 
the  first  dispatches  to  Europe  said  that  M.  Schwab  had  thrown  several 
bombs  at  the  police.  Later  on  they  sent  detectives  to  Lake  View,  and 
found  that  would  not  do.  And  then  Schnaubelt  was  the  man. 

Anarchy  was  on  trial.  Little  did  it  matter  who  the  persons  were  to 
be  honored  by  the  prosecution.  It  was  the  movement  the  blow  was  aimed 
at.  It  was  directed  against  the  labor  movement,  against  Socialism,  for  to¬ 
day  every  labor  movement  must,  of  necessity,  be  Socialistic. 

Talk  about  a  gigantic  conspiracy!  A  movement  is  not  a  conspiracy.  All 
we  did  was  done  in  open  daylight. 

There  were  no  secrets.  We  prophesied  in  word  and  writing  the  com¬ 
ing  of  a  great  revolution,  a  change  in  the  system  of  production  in  all  in¬ 
dustrial  countries  of  the  globe.  And  the  change  will  come,  and  must  come. 
Is  it  nol  absurd  to  suppose,  as  the  State’s  attorney  and  his  associates  have 
supposed,  that  this  social  revolution — a  change  of  such  immense  proportions 
— was  to  be  inaugurated  on  or  about  the  first  of  May  in  the  city  of  Chi¬ 
cago  by  making  war  on  the  police?  The  organizer  Furthman  searched  hun¬ 
dreds  of  numbers  of  the  Arbciter-Zeitung  and  the  Alarm ,  and  so  the  prose¬ 
cution  must  have  known  very  well  what  we  understood  when  we  talked 
about  the  coming  revolution.  But  the  prosecuting  attorneys  preferred  to 
ignore  these  explanatory  articles. 

The  articles  in  evidence  were  carefully  selected  and  paraded  as  samples 
of  violent  language,  but  the  language  used  in  them  was  just  the  same  as 
newspapers  used  in  general  against  us  and  their  enemies.  Even  against  the 
police  and  their  practices  they  used  words  of  the  same  kind  as  we  did. 

The  president  of  the  citizens’  association,  Edwin  Lee  Brown,  after  the 
last  election  of  Mayor  Harrison,  made  a  speech  in  North  Side  Turner  Hall, 
in  which  he  called  on  all  good  citizens  to  take  possession  of  the  court  house 
by  force,  even  if  they  had  to  wade  in  blood.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  most 
violent  speakers  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  Anarchists. 

It  is  not  violence  in  word  or  action  the  attorneys  of  the  State  and  their 
urgers-on  are  waging  war  against;  it  is  our  doctrine — Anarchy. 

We  contend  for  Communism  and  Anarchy — why?  If  we  had  kept  silent, 
stones  would  have  cried  out.  Murder  was  committed  day  by  day.  Chil¬ 
dren  were  slain ;  women  worked  to  death ;  men  killed  inch  by  inch,  and 
these  crimes  are  never  punished  by  law.  The  great  principle  underlying  the 
present  system  is  unpaid  labor.  Those  who  amass  fortunes,  build  palaces, 
and  live  in  luxury,  are  doing  these  things  by  virtue  of  unpaid  labor.  Be- 


26 


ADDRESS  OF  MICHAEL  SCHWAB 


ing  directly  or  indirectly  the  possessors  of  land  and  machinery,  they  dictate 
terms  to  the  workingman.  He  is  compelled  to  sell  his  labor  cheap,  or  to 
starve.  The  price  paid  him  is  always  far  below  the  real  value.  He  acts 
under  compulsion,  and  they  call  it  a  free  contract.  This  infernal  state  of 
affairs  keeps  him  poor  and  ignorant;  an  easy  prey  for  exploitation. 

I  know  what  life  has  in  store  for  the  masses.  I  was  one  of  them.  I 
slept  in  their  garrets,  and  lived  in  their  cellars.  I  saw  them  work  and  die. 
I  worked  with  girls  in  the  same  factory — prostitutes  they  were,  because  they 
could  not  earn  enough  wages  for  their  living.  I  saw  females  sick  from 
overwork;  sick  in  body  and  mind  on  account  of  the  lives  they  were  forced 
to  lead.  I  saw  girls  from  ten  to  fourteen  years  of  age  working  for  a  mere 
pittance.  I  heard  how  their  morals  were  killed  by  the  vile  language  and 
the  bad  example  of  their  ignorant  fellow  workers,  leading  them  on  the  same 
road  to  misery,  and  as  an  individual  I  could  do  nothing.  I  saw  families  starv¬ 
ing  and  able-bodied  men  worked  to  death.  That  was  in  Europe.  When  I 
came  to  the  United  States,  I  found  that  there  were  classes  of  workingmen 
who  were  better  paid  than  the  European  workmen,  but  I  perceived  that  the 
state  of  things  in  a  great  number  of  industries  was  even  worse,  and  that 
the  so-called  better  paid  skilled  laborers  were  degenerating  rapidly  into  mere 
automatic  parts  of  machinery.  I  found  that  the  proletariat  of  the  great  indus¬ 
trial  cities  was  in  a  condition  that  could  not  be  worse.  Thousands  of  labor¬ 
ers  in  the  city  of  Chicago  live  in  rooms  without  sufficient  protection  from  the 
weather,  without  proper  ventilation,  in  which  never  a  stream  of  sunlight 
flows.  There  are  hovels  where  two,  three  and  four  families  live  in  one 
room.  How  these  conditions  influence  the  health  and  the  morals  of  these 
unfortunate  sufferers,  it  is  needless  to  say.  And  how  do  they  live?  From 
the  ash  barrels  they  gather  half  rotten  vegetables ;  in  the  butcher  shops  they 
buy  for  a  few  cents  offal  of  meat,  and  these  precious  morsels  they  carry 
home  to  prepare  from  them  their  meals.  The  dilapidated  houses  in  which 
this  class  of  laborers  live  need  repairs  very  badly,  but  the  greedy  landlord 
waits  in  most  cases  till  he  is  compelled  by  the  city  to  have  them  done.  Is 
it  a  wonder  that  diseases  of  all  kinds  kill  men,  women  and  children  in  such 
places  by  wholesale,  especially  children?  Is  this  not  horrible  in  a  so-called 
civilized  land  where  there  is  plenty  of  food  and  riches?  Some  years  ago 
a  committee  of  the  citizens’  association,  or  league,  made  an  investigation  of 
these  matters,  and  I  was  one  of  the  reporters  that  went  with  them. 

What  these  common  laborers  are  today,  the  skilled  laborers  will  be  to¬ 
morrow.  Improved  machinery  that  ought  to  be  a  blessing  for  the  working¬ 
man,  under  the  existing  conditions  becomes  for  him  a  curse.  Machinery 
multiplies  the  army  of  unskilled  laborers,  makes  the  laborer  more  dependent 
upon  the  men  who  own  the  land  and  machines.  And  that  is  the  reason 
that  Socialism  and  Communism  got  a  foothold  in  this  country.  The  out¬ 
cry  that  Socialism,  Communism  and  Anarchism  are  the  creed  of  foreigners, 
is  a  big  mistake.  There  are  more  Socialists  of  American  birth  in  this  coun¬ 
try  than  foreigners,  and  that  is  much,  if  we  consider  that  more  than  half 
of  all  industrial  workingmen  are  native  Americans.  There  are  Socialistic 
papers  in  a  great  many  states  edited  by  Americans  for  Americans.  The 
capitalistic  newspapers  conceal  that  fact  very  carefully. 

Socialism,  as  we  understand  it,  means  that  land  and  machinery  shall  be 
held  in  common  by  the  people.  The  production  of  goods  shall  be  carried 
on  by  productive  groups  which  shall  supply  the  demands  of  the  people. 
Under  such  a  system  every  human  being  would  have  an  opportunity  to  do 
useful  work,  and  no  doubt  would  work.  Some  hours’  work  every  day 
would  suffice  to  produce  all,  according  to  statistics,  that  is  necessary  for 
a  comfortable  living.  Time  would  be  left  to  cultivate  the  mind,  and  to 
further  science  and  art. 

That  is  what  the  Socialists  propose.  Some  say,  it  is  un-American! 


ADDRESS  OF  MICHAEL  SCHWAB 


27 


Well,  then,  is  it  American  to  let  people  starve  and  die  in  ignorance?  Is 
exploitation  and  robbery  of  the  poor,  American?  What  have  the  great  po¬ 
litical  parties  done  for  the  poor?  Promised  much;  done  nothing,  except 
corrupting  them  by  buying  their  votes  on  election  day.  A  poverty-stricken 
man  has  no  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  community.  It  is  only  natural 
that  in  a  society  where  women  are  driven  to  sell  their  honor,  men  should 
sell  their  votes. 

But  we  were  not  only  “Socialists  and  Communists;”  we  were  “An¬ 
archists.” 

What  is  Anarchy? 

Is  it  not  strange  that  when  Anarchy  was  tried  nobody  ever  told  what 
Anarchy  was?  Even  when  I  was  on  the  witness  stand,  and  asked  the  State’s 
attorney  for  a  definition  of  Anarchy,  he  declined  to  give  it.  But  in  their 

speeches  he  and  his  associates  spoke  very  frequently  about  Anarchy,  and 

it  appeared  that  they  understood  it  to  be  something  horrible — arson,  rapine, 
murder.  In  so  speaking,  Mr.  Grinnell  and  his  associates  did  not  speak  the 
truth.  They  searched  the  Alarm  and  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung ,  and  hunted  up 
articles  written  years  before  the  month  of  May,  1886.  In  the  columns  of 
these  papers  it  is  very  often  stated  what  we,  the  Anarchists,  understood 
by  the  term  Anarchy.  And  we  are  the  only  competent  judges  in  this  mat¬ 
ter.  As  soon  as  the  word  is  applied  to  us  and  our  doctrine,  it  carries  with 
it  the  meaning  which  we,  the  Anarchists,  saw  fit  to  give  to  it.  “Anarchy” 
is  Greek,  and  means,  verbatim :  without  rulership ;  not  being  ruled.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  our  vocabulary,  Anarchy  is  a  state  of  society,  in  which  the  only 
government  is  reason ;  a  state  of  society  in  which  all  human  beings  do 
right  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  is  right,  and  hate  wrong  because  it  is 
wrong.  In  such  a  society,  no  laws,  no  compulsion  will  be  necessary.  The 
attorney  for  the  State  was  wrong  when  he  said :  “Anarchy  is  dead.”  An¬ 
archy,  up  to  the  present  day,  has  existed  only  as  a  doctrine,  and  Mr.  Grin¬ 

nell  has  not  the  power  to  kill  any  doctrine  whatever.  You  may  call  An¬ 
archy,  as  defined  by  us,  an  idle  dream,  but  that  dream  was  dreamed  by 
Gotthold  Ephraim  Lessing,  one  of  the  three  great  German  poets  and  the 
most  celebrated  German  critic  of  the  last  century.  If  Anarchy  were  the 
thing  the  State’s  attorney  makes  it  out  to  be,  how  could  it  be  that  such 
eminent  scholars  as  Prince  Kropotkin  and  the  greatest  living  geographer, 
Elisee  Reclus,  were  avowed  Anarchists,  even  editors  of  Anarchistic  news¬ 
papers?  Anarchy  is  a  dream,  but  only  in  the  present.  It  will  be  realized. 
Reason  will  grow  in  spite  of  all  obstacles.  Who  is  the  man  that  has  the 
cheek  to  tell  us  that  human  development  has  already  reached  its  culmi¬ 
nating  point?  I  know  that  our  ideal  will  not  be  accomplished  this  or  next 
year,  but  I  know  that  it  will  be  accomplished  as  near  as  possible,  some 
day,  in  the  future.  It  is  entirely  wrong  to  use  the  word  Anarchy  as  synon¬ 
ymous  with  violence.  Violence  is  one  thing  and  Anarchy  another.  In  the 
present  state  of  society  violence  is  used  on  all  sides,  and,  therefore,  we 
advocated  the  use  of  violence  against  violence,  but  against  violence  only, 
as  a  necessary  means  of  defense.  I  never  read  Mr.  Most’s  book,  simply 
because  I  did  not  find  time  to  read  it.  And  if  I  had,  what  of  it?  I  am 
an  agnostic,  but  I  like  to  read  the  Bible  nevertheless.  I  have  not  the  slight¬ 
est  idea  who  threw  the  bomb  on  the  Haymarket,  and  had  no  knowledge 
of  any  conspiracy  to  use  violence  on  that  or  any  other  night. 


o4DDRESS  OF  OSCAR  NEEBE 

Your  Honor:  I  have  found  out  during  the  last  few  days  what  law  is. 
Before  I  didn’t  know.  1  did  not  know  before  that  I  was  convicted  because 
I  knew  Spies  and  Fielden  and  Parsons.  I  have  met  these  gentlemen.  I 
have  presided  in  a  mass  meeting,  as  the  evidence  against  me  shows,  held 
in  the  Turner  Hall,  at  which  meeting  your  honor  was  invited  to  appear. 
The  judges,  the  preachers,  the  newspaper  men,  and  everybody,  in  fact,  were 
invited  to  appear  at  that  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  Anarchism 
and  Socialism.  I  was  at  that  hall.  I  am  well  known  among  the  working¬ 
men  of  this  city,  and  I  was  elected  chairman  of  that  meeting.  None  of 
the  representatives  of  the  capitalistic  system  came  forward  to  speak,  to  dis¬ 
cuss  the  questions  of  labor  and  Anarchism  or  Socialism  with  laboring  men. 
No;  they  couldn’t  stand  it.  I  was  chairman  of  that  meeting.  I  don’t  deny  it. 

I  also  on  one  occasion  had  the  honor  to  be  marshal  of  a  labor  demon¬ 
stration  in  this  city,  and  I  never  saw  a  more  respectable  lot  of  men  than 
on  that  day.  They  marched  like  soldiers,  and  I  am  proud  that  I  was  mar¬ 
shal  of  those  men.  They  were  the  toilers  and  the  workingmen  of  this 
city.  The  men  marched  through  the  streets  to  protest  against  the  wrongs 
of  society,  and  I  was  marshal  of  them.  If  that  is  a  crime,  then  I  have 
found  out,  as  a  native,  free-born  American,  of  what  I  have  been  guilty. 
I  always  supposed  I  had  a  right  to  express  my  opinion  as  the  chairman  of 
a  peaceable  meeting,  and  to  be  marshal  of  a  labor  demonstration.  Was  it 
a  crime  to  be  marshal  of  that  demonstration?  I  am  convicted  for  that. 

On  the  morning  of  the  fifth  of  May,  your  honor,  on  the  road  to  my 
business,  I  heard  that  August  Spies  and  Michael  Schwab  were  arrested. 
I  was  in  the  yeast  business.  1  peddled  my  yeast  through  the  southern  part 
of  the  city.  I  was  informed  that  they  were  arrested.  That  was  the  first 
time  I  learned  that  there  had  been  a  mass  meeting  held  at  the  Haymarket 
the  day  before.  After  I  was  done  with  my  business  and  drove  home,  I 
stopped  at  the  Arbciter-Zeitung  to  see  what  was  going  on,  and  I  met  there 
Mrs.  Parsons  and  Mrs.  Holmes  and  a  couple  of  boys  of  the  Arbeiter-Zei- 
tung.  They  explained  to  me  that  the  men  were  arrested.  Just  as  I  was 
going  to  speak  to  Mrs.  Parsons  about  it,  up  rushed  a  lot  of  pirates,  called 
detectives  of  Chicago ;  men — you  could  see  the  rum  and  ignorance  in  their 
faces — mostly  picked  up  from  among  the  ruffians  of  the  streets  of  Chicago. 
I  never  saw  a  rougher  set.  Well,  I  don’t  wish  to  make  any  further  re¬ 
marks  about  these  honorable  pirates.  Mayor  Harrison  was  with  these  pi¬ 
rates.  He  came  in  and  he  says:  “Who  is  the  manager  of  this  paper  here?” 
The  two  boys  couldn’t  speak  English,  and  I  knew  Harrison,  so  I  said : 
“Harrison,  what  is  it?”  “Well,”  he  says,  “I  want  to  have  this  thing  stopped. 
There  won’t  be  any  more  inflammable  articles  allowed  in  this  paper.”  Said 
I :  “Mr.  Harrison,  I  will  sit  here  and  read  the  articles,  and  see  that  there 
won’t  be  anything  inflammatory  in  this  day’s  issue.”  Our  compositors  were 
not  arrested  at  that  time.  So  Harrison  said  to  me,  “I  will  go  to  the  house 
and  send  Mr.  Hand  over  here.”  I  knew  him,  and  both  of  us  together  re¬ 
vised  all  the  articles  printed  in  the  paper  that  day.  A  few  minutes  later 
Harrison  went  out,  and  our  whole  set  of  compositors  were  coming  down 
the  stairs,  and  another  Jot  of  ruffians  came  up  the  steps,  and  Mrs.  Holmes 
and  Mrs.  Parsons  were  sitting  at  the  desk  writing,  and  a  man  whom  you 
could  see  was  a  noble  Democratic  officer,  said:  “What  are  you  doing  there?” 
Mrs.  Holmes  is  a  lady  in  my  eyes,  and  she  said :  “I  am  corresponding  with 
my  brother.  He  is  the  editor  of  a  labor  paper.”  As  she  said  that  he 
snatched  the  lady,  and  she  protested  as  an  American  woman,  and  as  she 


ADDRESS  OF  OSCAR  NEEBE 


29 


protested  he  said :  “Shut  up,  you  bitch,  or  I  will  knock  you  down.”  I  re¬ 
peat  the  same  words  here,  and  I  have  a  right  to,  as  the  noble  officers  of 
Chicago  have  used  this  language.  That  is  one  of  your  men,  Mr.  Grinnell 
— just  like  you.  You  have  insulted  ladies  when  you  have  not  dared  to  in¬ 
sult  gentlemen.  Mrs.  Parsons  was  called  the  same  name  by  the  officers. 
They  called  her  a  black  bitch,  and  wanted  to  knock  her  down ;  and  they 
said  they  would  not  let  us  publish  any  paper ;  they  would  take  the  types 
and  material  and  throw  them  out  of  the  window.  We  are  a  stock  company,  a 
company  chartered  by  the  State  of  Illinois  for  the  publication  of  a  labor  pa¬ 
per  and  labor  literature.  Our  charter  states  it.  When  I  heard  they  wanted 
to  destroy  the  property  of  the  laboring  men  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  who 
had  paid  their  money  to  have  the  paper  published,  I  said :  “As  long  as  I 
stand  I  shall  publish  that  paper,”  and  took  charge  of  it.  I  suppose  Grin¬ 
nell  thought  after  Oscar  Neebe  was  indicted  for  murder  the  Arbeiter- 
Zeitung  would  go  down.  But  it  didn’t  happen  that  wray.  And  Mr.  Furth- 
man,  too  (pointing  to  the  assistant  State’s  attorney) — he  is  a  scoundrel, 
and  I  tell  it  to  you  to  your  face.  There  is  only  one  man  that  acted  as  a 
gentleman,  and  he  is  Mr.  Ingham;  but  you  three  have  not.  Inside  of  two 
weeks  I  had  enough  money  from  the  toilers,  from  hired  girls,  and  from 
men  who  would  take  their  last  cent  out  of  their  pockets  to  re-establish  the 
paper  and  to  buy  a  press  of  our  own.  I  could  not  publish  the  paper  sooner 
because  the  honorable  detectives  and  Mr.  Grinnell  followed  us  up,  and  no 
printing  house  would  print  our  paper,  because  of  the  threats  of  these  men, 
and  we  had  to  have  our  own  press.  We  published  our  own  paper  after  we 
had  a  press  purchased  with  the  money  contributed  by  the  workingmen  of 
the  city. 

That  is  the  crime  I  have  committed,  getting  men  to  try  and  establish 
a  workingman’s  paper  that  stands  today;  and  I  am  proud  of  it.  They  have 
not  got  one  press  simply — they  have  two  presses  today,  and  they  belong  to 
the  workingmen  of  this  city.  From  the  date  of  the  first  issue  to  the  pres¬ 
ent  day,  your  honor,  we  have  gained  four  thousand  subscribers  to  our  daily 
paper.  There  are  the  gentlemen  sitting  over  there  from  the  Freie  Presse 
and  Slaats-Zeiiung — they  know  it.  The  Germans  of  this  city  are  condemn¬ 
ing  these  actions.  I  say  that  it  is  a  verdict  against  Germans,  and  I,  as  an 
American,  must  say  that  I  never  saw  anything  like  that. 

These  are  the  crimes  I  have  committed  after  the  fourth  of  May.  Be¬ 
fore  the  fourth  of  May  I  committed  some  other  crimes.  My  business 
brought  me  in  connection  with  the  bakers.  I  saw  that  the  bakers  in  this 
city  were  treated  like  dogs.  The  baker  bosses  treated  their  dogs  better 
than  they  treated  their  men.  I  said  to  myself:  “These  men  have  to  be  or¬ 
ganized  ;  in  organization  there  is  strength ;”  and  I  helped  to  organize  them. 
That  is  a  great  crime.  The  men  are  now  working  ten  hours  a  day  instead 
of  fourteen  and  sixteen  hours,  and  instead  of  being  compelled  to  eat  slops 
like  the  dogs,  and  sleep  on  the  stairways  or  in  the  barn,  they  can  sleep  and 
work  whenever  they  please.  I  have  helped  to  establish  that,  your  honor. 
That  is  another  crime.  And  I  committed  a  greater  crime  than  that.  I  saw 
in  the  morning  when  I  drove  away  with  my  team  that  the  beer  brewers  of 
the  city  of  Chicago  went  to  work  at  four  o’clock  in  the  morning.  They 
came  home  at  seven  and  eight  o’clock  at  night.  They  never  saw  their  fam¬ 
ilies  or  their  children  by  daylight.  I  said  to  myself :  “If  you  organize  these 
men  they  can  live  like  men  You  can  help  to  make  good  citizens  of  them.” 
And  everybody  said :  “They  are  down  low ;  they  are  drunkards.”  I  went 
to  work  and  organized  them.  I  rented  a  hall  and  issued  an  appeal  for 
them,  and  got  them  to  come,  and  I  organized  the  men.  On  Saturday,  May 
1  or  May  2,  I  was  conferring  with  the  beer  brewer  bosses  of  Chicago  and 
we  had  a  meeting.  I  was  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  and  I  asked  the 
beer  brewer  bosses  to  reduce  the  hours  of  labor  down  to  ten  hours  a  day, 


30 


ADDRESS  OF  OSCAR  NEEBE 


and  they  did  it.  On  the  Monday  after  I  committed  that  great  crime — that 
was  Saturday — I  was  in  session  with  the  beer  brewers  the  whole  day.  In 
the  evening  I  took  my  supper  and  went  to  the  North  Side  Turner  Hall, 
where  the  union  men,  over  eight  hundred  strong,  were,  and  I  don’t  know 
anything  about  McCormick’s,  or  what  Spies  had  done  or  said.  I  entered 
the  hall  I  went  on  the  platform  and  presented  the  union  with  a  document 
signed  by  every  beer  brewer  of  Chicago,  guaranteeing  ten  hours  labor  and 
sixty-five  dollars  wages — fifteen  dollars  more  wages  per  month,  and  no 
Sunday  work,  to  give  the  men  a  chance  to  go  to  church,  as  many  of  them 
arc  good  Christians.  There  are  a  good  many  Christians  among  them.  So, 
in  that  way,  I  was  aiding  Christianity — helping  the  men  to  go  to  church. 

After  the  meeting  I  left  the  hall,  and  stepped  into  the  front  saloon, 
and  there  were  circulars  lying  there  called  the  “revenge”  circular.  I  picked 
up  a  couple  of  them  from  a  table  and  folded  them  together  and  put  them 
in  my  pocket,  not  having  a  chance  to  read  them,  because  everybody  wanted 
to  treat  me.  They  all  thought  it  was  by  my  efforts  that  they  got  fifteen 
dollars  a  month  more  wages  and  ten  hours  a  day.  Why,  I  didn’t  have  a 
chance  to  read  the  circulars.  From  there  I  went  to  another  saloon  across 
the  street,  and  the  president  of  the  Beer  Brewers’  Union  was  there ;  he 
asked  me  to  walk  with  him,  and  on  the  way  home  we  went  into  Heine’s 
saloon.  He  was  talking  to  Heine  about  the  McCormick  affair,  and  I  picked 
up  a  circular  and  read  it,  and  Heine  asked  me:  “Can  you  give  me  one?”  I 
gave  him  one  and  he  laid  it  back  on  his  counter. 

That  is  my  statement.  You  can  believe  it  or  not;  but  Heine  didn’t 
testify  any  other  way.  Mr.  Grinnell  indicted  me  for  murder.  That  is  the 
whole  story  in  short  of  what  I  had  to  do  with  this  Haymarket  affair.  So 
you  see  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  didn’t  know  anything  about  it. 
The  next  day  I  read  in  the  paper  that  Attorney  Walker — certainly  an  hon¬ 
orable  man — was  in  the  saloon.  It  was  kind  of  dangerous  for  him  evidently, 
for  he  subsequently  denied  being  there.  However  that  may  have  been,  I  was 
there. 

And,  your  honor,  I  committed  another  crime.  I  saw  that  the  grocery 
clerks  and  other  clerks  of  this  city  worked  until  ten  and  eleven  o’clock  in 
the  evening.  I  issued  a  call  and  rented  a  hall,  and  paid  for  the  hand-bills, 
and  called  them  together,  and  today  they  are  working  only  until  seven 
o’clock  in  the  evening,  and  no  Sunday  work.  That  is  a  great  crime  I  have 
committed,  in  your  sight.  I  saved  for  the  men  from  four  to  five  hours  a 
day  I  have  saved  the  bakers  from  six  to  eight  hours’  work  a  day,  and 
that  gives  them  time  for  education.  We  Socialists  are  great  believers  that 
the  laboring  men  should  educate  themselves,  not  to  be  ignoramuses,  as  some 
people  express  themselves,  “as  the  ignorant  Anarchists  are.”  We  are  great 
friends  of  education  and  a  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor.  A  reduction 
of  the  hours  of  labor  was  my  principal  aim,  and  I  have  done  some  good 
work  to  bring  it  about. 

I  have  been  in  the  labor  movement  since  1865.  I  have  seen  how  the 
police  have  trodden  on  the  Constitution  of  this  country,  and  crushed  the 
labor  organizations.  I  have  seen  from  year  to  year  how  they  were  trod¬ 
den  down,  where  they  were  shot  down,  where  they  were  “driven  into  their 
holes  like  rats,”  as  Mr.  Grinnell  said  to  the  jury.  But  they  will  come  out ! 
Remember  that  within  three  years  before  the  beginning  of  the  French  Revo¬ 
lution,  when  laws  had  been  stretched  like  rubber,  that  the  rubber  stretched 
too  long,  and  broke — a  result  which  cost  a  good  many  State’s  attorneys  and 
a  good  many  honorable  men  their  necks. 

We  Socialists  hope  such  times  may  never  come  again;  we  do  everything 
in  our  power  to  prevent  it,  such  as  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  and  increas¬ 
ing  wages.  But  you  capitalists  won’t  allow  this  to  be  done.  You  use  your 
power  to  perpetuate  a  system  by  which  you  make  your  money  for  your- 


ADDRESS  OF  OSCAR  NEEBE 


31 


selves  and  keep  the  wage  workers  poor.  You  make  them  ignorant  and  mis¬ 
erable,  and  you  are  responsible  for  it.  You  won’t  let  the  toilers  live  a  de¬ 
cent  life. 

We  want  to  educate  the  masses  and  keep  them  back  from  destroying 
life  and  property,  but  we  are  not  able  to  hold  the  masses  when  starvation 
brings  them  out  of  their  holes  like  rats.  I  have  walked  along  the  streets  of 
this  city  and  I  have  seen  the  rats  come  from  their  holes  by  the  hundreds  in 
the  basements,  where  men  pay  five  and  ten  cents  for  lodgings.  I  have  seen 
the  miserable  wretches  there  in  the  day  begging  for  a  piece  of  bread,  and 
in  the  night  they  lie  there  in  an  air  that  was  difficult  to  breathe.  I  have 
been  in  there  at  ten,  twelve,  and  two  o’clock  at  night,  and  when  those  “rats” 
are  let  out  of  their  holes  and  get  desperate  I  would  not  like  to  be  near  them. 
The  time  will  come  that  you  will  see  them.  You  rich  men  don’t  want  the 
poor  educated.  You  don’t  want  anybody  to  be  educated.  You  want  to  keep 
them  down  in  the  mud  so  you  can  squeeze  the  last  drop  of  blood  out  of 
their  bones. 

We  asked  the  capitalists  once  at  a  meeting  to  discuss  the  question  of 
labor,  and  Mr.  Gary  was  invited,  and  each  one  of  them  was  invited,  and 
nobody  appeared.  They  didn’t  want  to  discuss  the  question ;  they  didn’t  care 
for  it.  What  is  the  next  question?  No  discussion,  more  gatling  guns,  more 
militia,  and  300  more  police.  For  what?  To  catch  the  thieves?  I  read  the 
daily  papers  and  see  that  burglaries  are  taking  place  all  over  the  city,  but 
I  don’t  see  that  they  catch  any.  There  are  some  twelve  hundred  odd  po¬ 
licemen  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  every  day  so  many  burglaries.  Maybe 
they  need  them  to  make  a  case  sometimes,  and  they  don’t  arrest  them ;  but 
when  it  comes  to  arresting  a  poor  workingman  they  are  all  there.  On  May 
9,  when  I  came  home,  my  wife,  who  is  delicate,  told  me  that  the  patrol  wag¬ 
on,  with  twenty-five  police,  came  to  search  my  house.  I  must  be  a  very 
dangerous  man  to  require  so  many  police.  They  searched  the  whole  house 
and  they  found  a  revolver.  That  is  a  deadly  weapon  and  a  dangerous  weap¬ 
on.  I  don’t  think  anybody  has  revolvers  but  Anarchists  and  Socialists  and 
labor  agitators.  They  found  a  red  flag,  too — a  flag  of  that  size  (about  a 
foot  square)  that  my  little  boy  played  with,  and  my  wife  used  at  a  masquer¬ 
ade  ball.  My  wife  told  me  that  when  the  police — these  honorable  men  who 
protect  law  and  order — got  on  the  wagon  they  waved  that  flag  and  hollered 
and  hurrahed  just  like  a  lot  of  wild  Indians — and  they  were  wild  Indians 
in  those  days.  They  searched  hundreds  of  houses,  and  money  was  stolen 
and  watches  were  stolen,  and  nobody  knew  whether  they  were  stolen  by 
the  police  or  not.  Nobody  but  Captain  Schaack;  he  knows  it.  His  gang 
was  one  of  the  worst  in  this  city.  You  need  not  laugh  about  it,  Captain 
Schaack.  You  are  one  of  them.  You  are  an  Anarchist,  as  you  understand 
it.  You  are  all  Anarchists,  in  this  sense  of  the  word,  I  must  say. 

Well,  these  are  all  the  crimes  I  have  committed.  They  found  a  revolver 
in  my  house,  and  a  red  flag  there.  I  organized  trades  unions.  I  was  for 
reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor,  and  the  education  of  the  laboring  men,  and 
the  re-establishment  of  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung — the  workingmen’s  newspaper. 
There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  I  was  connected  with  the  bomb  throwing, 
or  that  I  was  near  it,  or  anything  of  that  kind.  So  I  will  ask  you  to  hang 
me,  too ;  for  I  think  it  is  more  honorable  to  die  suddenly  than  to  be  killed 
by  inches.  I  have  a  family  and  children ;  and  if  they  know  their  father  is 
dead,  they  will  bury  him.  They  can  go  to  the  grave,  and  kneel  down  by  the 
side  of  it ;  but  they  can’t  go  to  the  penitentiary  and  see  their  father,  who 
was  convicted  for  a  crime  that  he  hadn’t  anything  to  do  with.  That  is  all 
I  have  got  to  say.  Your  honor,  I  am  sorry  I  am  not  to  be  hung  with  the 
rest  of  the  men.* 


*  Oscar  Neebe  was  the  only  one  of  the  eight  defendants  who  was  not  condemned  to 
death.  He  was  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  fifteen  years. 


ADDRESS  OF  ADOLPH  FISCHER 

Your  Honor:  You  ask  me  why  sentence  of  death  should  not  be  passed 
upon  me.  I  will  not  talk  much.  I  will  only  say  that  I  protest  against  my 
being  sentenced  to  death,  because  I  have  committed  no  crime.  I  was  tried 
here  in  this  room  for  murder,  and  I  was  convicted  of  Anarchy.  I  protest 
against  being  sentenced  to  death,  because  I  have  not  been  found  guilty  of 
murder.  However,  if  I  am  to  die  on  account  of  being  an  Anarchist,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  my  love  for  liberty,  fraternity  and  equality,  I  will  not  remonstrate. 
If  death  is  the  penalty  for  our  love  of  freedom  of  the  human  race,  then  I 
say  openly  I  have  forfeited  my  life ;  but  a  murderer  I  am  not.  Although 
being  one  of  the  parties  who  arranged  the  Haymarket  meeting,  I  had  no 
more  to  do  with  the  throwing  of  that  bomb,  I  had  no  more  connection 
with  it  than  State’s  Attorney  Grinnell  had.  I  do  not  deny  that  I  was  pres¬ 
ent  at  the  Haymarket  meeting,  but  that  meeting — 

(At  this  point  Mr.  Salomon  stepped  up  and  spoke  to  Mr.  Fischer  in  a 
low  tone,  but  the  latter  waved  him  off  and  said:) 

Mr.  Salomon,  be  so  kind.  I  know  what  I  am  talking  about.  Now,  that 

Haymarket  meeting  was  not  called  for  the  purpose  of  committing  violence 
and  crime.  No;  but  the  meeting  was  called  for  the  purpose  of  protesting 
against  the  outrages  and  crimes  committed  by  the  police  on  the  previous 
day,  out  at  McCormick’s.  The  State’s  witness,  Waller,  and  others  have 
testified  here,  and  I  only  need  to  repeat  it,  that  we  had  a  meeting  on  Mon¬ 
day  night,  and  at  this  meeting — the  affair  at  McCormick’s  taking  place  just 
a  few  hours  previous — took  action  and  called  a  mass  meeting  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  protesting  against  the  brutal  outrages  of  the  police.  Waller  was 
chairman  of  this  meeting,  and  he  himself  made  the  motion  to  hold  the  meet¬ 
ing  at  the  Haymarket.  It  was  also  he  who  appointed  me  as  a  committee  to 

have  handbills  printed  and  to  provide  for  speakers ;  that  I  did,  and  noth¬ 

ing  else.  The  next  day  I  went  to  Wehrer  &  Klein,  and  had  25,000  handbills 
printed,  and  I  invited  Spies  to  speak  at  the  Haymarket  meeting.  In  the 
original  of  the  “copy”  I  had  the  line  “Workingmen,  appear  armed!”  and 
my  reason  for  putting  those  words  in  was  because  I  didn’t  want  the  work¬ 
ingmen  to  be  shot  down  in  that  meeting  as  on  other  occasions.  But  as 
those  circulars  were  printed,  or  as  a  few  of  them  were  printed  and  brought 
over  to  me  at  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung  office,  my  Comrade  Spies  saw  one  of 
them.  I  had  invited  him  to  speak  before  that.  He  showed  me  the  circular, 
and  said :  “Well,  Fischer,  if  those  circulars  are  distributed,  1  won’t  speak.” 
I  admitted  it  would  be  better  to  take  the  objectionable  words  out,  and  Mr. 
Spies  spoke.  And  that  is  all  I  had  to  do  with  that  meeting.  Well,  I  went 
to  the  Haymarket  about  8:15  o’clock,  and  stayed  there  until  Parsons  inter¬ 
rupted  Fielden’s  speech.  Parsons  stepped  up  to  the  stand,  and  said  that  it 
looked  like  it  was  going  to  rain,  and  that  the  assembly  had  better  adjourn 
to  Zepf’s  Hall.  At  that  moment  a  friend  of  mine  who  testified  on  the  wit¬ 
ness  stand,  went  with  me  to  Zepf’s  Hall,  and  we  sat  down  at  a  table  and 
had  a  glass  of  beer.  At  the  moment  I  was  going  to  sit  down,  my  friend 
Parsons  came  in  with  some  other  persons,  and  after  I  was  sitting  there 
about  five  minutes  the  explosion  occurred.  I  had  no  idea  that  anything  of 
the  kind  would  happen,  because,  as  the  State’s  witnesses  testified  themselves, 
there  was  no  agreement  to  defend  ourselves  that  night.  It  was  only  a  meet¬ 
ing  called  to  protest. 

Now,  as  I  said  before,  this  verdict,  which  was  rendered  by  the  jury  in 
this  room,  is  not  directed  against  murder,  but  against  Anarchy.  I  feel  that 
I  am  sentenced,  or  that  I  will  be  sentenced,  to  death  because  of  being  an 


ADDRESS  OF  ADOLPH  FISCHER 


33 


Anarchist,  and  not  because  I  am  a  murderer.  I  have  never  been  a  murderer. 
I  have  never  yet  committed  a  crime  in  my  life;  but  I  know  a  certain  man 
who  is  on  the  way  to  becoming  a  murderer,  an  assassin,  and  that  man  is 
Grinnell — the  State’s  Attorney  Grinnell — because  he  brought  men  on  the 
witness  stand  who  he  knew  would  swear  falsely;  and  I  publicly  denounce 
Mr.  Grinnell  as  a  murderer  and  assassin  if  I  should  be  executed.  But  if 
the  ruling  class  thinks  that  by  executing  us,  hanging  a  few  Anarchists,  they 
can  crush  out  Anarchy,  they  will  be  badly  mistaken,  because  the  Anarchist 
loves  his  principles  better  than  his  life.  An  Anarchist  is  always  ready  to  die 
for  his  principles;  but  in  this  case  I  have  been  charged  with  murder,  and  I 
am  not  a  murderer.  You  will  find  it  impossible  to  kill  a  principle,  although 
you  may  take  the  life  of  men  who  confess  these  principles.  The  more  the 
believers  in  just  causes  are  persecuted,  the  quicker  will  their  ideas  be  real¬ 
ized.  For  instance,  in  rendering  such  an  unjust  and  barbarous  verdict,  the 
twelve  “honorable”  men  in  the  jury  box  have  done  more  for  the  furtherance 
of  Anarchism  than  the  convicted  could  have  accomplished  in  a  generation. 
This  verdict  is  a  death-blow  against  free  speech,  free  press,  and  free  thought 
in  this  country,  and  the  people  will  be  conscious  of  it,  too.  This  is  all  I 
care  to  say. 


cADDRESS  OF  LOUIS  LINGG 

Court  of  Justice:  With  the  same  irony  with  which  you  have- regarded 
my  efforts  to  win,  in  this  “free  land  of  America,”  a  livelihood  such  as  hu¬ 
man-kind  is  worthy  to  enjoy,  do  you  now,  after  condemning  me  to  death, 
concede  me  the  liberty  of  making  a  final  speech. 

I  accept  your  concession;  but  it  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  the 
injustice,  the  calumnies,  and  the  outrages  which  have  been  heaped  upon  me. 

You  have  accused  me  of  murder,  and  convicted  me;  what  proof  have 
you  brought  that  I  am  guilty? 

In  the  first  place,  you  have  brought  this  fellow  Seliger  to  testify  against 
me.  Him  I  have  helped  to  make  bombs,  and  you  have  further  proven  that 
with  the  assistance  of  another,  I  took  those  bombs  to  No.  58  Clybourn 
avenue,  but  what  you  have  not  proved — even  with  the  assistance  of  your 
bought  “squealer,”  Seliger,  who  would  appear  to  have  acted  such  a  promi¬ 
nent  part  in  the  affair — is  that  any  of  those  bombs  were  taken  to  the  Hay- 
market. 

A  couple  of  chemists  also  have  been  brought  here  as  specialists,  yet 
they  could  only  state  that  the  metal  of  which  the  Haymarket  bomb  was  made 
bore  a  certain  resemblance  to  those  bombs  of  mine,  and  your  Mr.  Ingham 
has  vainly  endeavored  to  deny  that  the  bombs  were  quite  different.  He  had 
to  admit  that  there  was  a  difference  of  a  full  half  inch  in  their  diameters, 
although  he  suppressed  the  fact  that  there  was  also  a  difference  of  a  quar¬ 
ter  of  an  inch  in  the  thickness  of  the  shell.  This  is  the  kind  of  evidence 
upon  which  you  have  convicted  me. 

It  is  not  murder,  however,  of  which  you  have  convicted  me.  The  judge 
has  stated  that  much  only  this  morning  in  his  resume  of  the  case,  and  Grin¬ 
ned  has  repeatedly  asserted  that  we  were  being  tried,  not  for  murder,  but 
for  Anarchy,  so  that  the  condemnation  is — that  I  am  an  Anarchist ! 

What  is  Anarchy? 

This  is  a  subject  which  my  comrades  have  explained  with  sufficient 
clearness,  and  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  go  over  it  again.  They  have  told 
you  plainly  enough  what  our  aims  are.  The  State’s  attorney,  however,  has 
not  given  you  that  information.  He  has  merely  criticized  and  condemned 
not  the  doctrines  of  Anarchy,  but  our  methods  of  giving  them  practical 
effect,  and  even  here  he  has  maintained  a  discreet  silence  as  to  the  fact  that 
those  methods  wrere  forced  upon  us  by  the  brutality  of  the  police.  Grinnell’s 
own  proffered  remedy  for  our  grievances  is  the  ballot  and  combination  of 
Trades  Unions,  and  Ingham  has  even  avowed  the  desirability  of  a  six  hour 
movement !  But  the  fact  is,  that  at  every  attempt  to  wield  the  ballot,  at 
every  endeavor  to  combine  the  efforts  of  workingmen,  you  have  displayed  the 
brutal  violence  of  the  police  club,  and  this  is  why  I  have  recommended  rude 
force  to  combat  the  ruder  force  of  the  police. 

You  have  charged  me  with  despising  “law  and  order.”  What  does  your 
“law  and  order”  amount  to?  Its  representatives  are  the  police,  and  they 
have  thieves  in  their  ranks.  Here  sits  Captain  Schaack.  He  has  himself  ad¬ 
mitted  to  me  that  my  hat  and  books  have  been  stolen  from  him  in  his  office 
— stolen  by  policemen.  These  are  your  defenders  of  property  rights ! 

The  detectives  again,  who  arrested  me,  forced  their  way  into  my  room 
like  house  breakers,  under  false  pretenses,  giving  the  name  of  a  carpenter, 
Lorenz,  of  Burlington  street.  They  have  sworn  that  I  was  alone  in  my 
room,  therein  perjuring  themselves.  You  have  not  subpoenaed  this  lady,  Mrs. 
Klein,  who  was  present,  and  could  have  sworn  that  the  aforesaid  detectives 


ADDRESS  OF  LOUIS  LINGG 


35 


broke  into  my  room  under  false  pretenses,  and  that  their  testimonies  are 
perjured. 

But  let  us  go  further..  In  Schaack  we  have  a  captain  of  the  police,  and 
he  also  has  perjured  himself.  He  has  sworn  that  I  admitted  to  him  being 
present  at  the  Monday  night’s  meeting,  whereas  I  distinctly  informed  him 
that  I  was  at  a  carpenters’  meeting  at  Zepf’s  Hall.  He  has  sworn  again  that 
I  told  him  that  I  had  learned  how  to  make  bombs  from  Herr  Most’s  book. 
That,  also,  is  perjury. 

Let  us  go  still  a  step  higher  among  these  representatives  of  “law  and 
order.”  Grinnell  and  his  associates  have  permitted  perjury,  and  I  say  that 
they  have  done  it  knowingly.  The  proof  has  been  adduced  by  my  counsel, 
and  with  my  own  eyes  I  have  seen  Grinnell  point  out  to  Gilmer,  eight  days 
before  he  came  upon  the  stand,  the  persons  of  the  men  whom  he  was  to 
swear  against. 

While  I,  as  I  have  stated  above,  believe  in  force  for  the  sake  of  winning 
for  myself  and  fellow  workmen  a  livelihood  such  as  men  ought  to  have, 
Grinnell,  on  the  other  hand,  through  his  police  and  other  rogues,  has 
suborned  perjury  in  order  to  murder  seven  men,  of  whom  I  am  one. 

Grinnell  had  the  pitiful  courage,  here  in  this  courtroom,  where  I  could 
not  defend  myself,  to  call  me  a  coward !  The  scoundrel !  A  fellow  who  has 
leagued  himself  with  a  parcel  of  base  hireling  knaves,  to  bring  me  to  the  gal¬ 
lows.  Why?  For  no  earthly  reason  save  a  contemptible  selfishness — a  de¬ 
sire  to  “rise  in  the  world” — to  “make  money,”  forsooth ! 

This  wrotch — who,  by  means  of  the  perjuries  of  other  wretches  is  going 
to  murder  seven  men — is  the  fellow  who  calls  me  “coward”  !  And  yet  you 
blame  me  for  despising  such  “defenders  of  the  law” — such  unspeakable 
hypocrites ! 

Anarchy  means  no  domination  or  authority  of  one  man  over  another,  yet 
you  call  that  “disorder.”  A  system  which  advocates  no  such  "order”  as  shall 
require  the  services  of  rogues  and  thieves  to  defend  it  you  call  “disorder.” 

The  judge  himself  was  forced  to  admit  that  the  State’s  attorney  had  not 
been  able  to  connect  me  with  the  bomb  throwing.  The  latter  knows  how  to 
get  around  it,  however.  He  charges  me  with  being  a  “conspirator.”  How 
does  he  prove  it?  Simply  by  declaring  the  International  Workingmen’s  As¬ 
sociation  to  be  a  “conspiracy.”  I  was  a  member  of  that  body,  so  he  has  the 
charge  securely  fastened  on  me.  Excellent!  Nothing  is  too  difficult  for  the 
genius  of  a  State’s  attorney ! 

It  is  hardly  incumbent  upon  me  to  review  the  relations  which  I  occupy 
to  my  companions  in  misfortune.  My  friend  Spies  has  already  explained  how 
we  became  acquainted  with  each  other.  I  can  say  truly  and  openly  that  I 
am  not  as  intimate  with  my  fellow  prisoners  as  I  am  with  Captain  Schaack. 

The  universal  misery,  the  ravages  of  the  capitalistic  hyena  have  brought 
us  together  in  our  agitation,  not  as  persons,  but  as  workers  in  the  same 
cause.  Such  is  the  “conspiracy”  of  which  you  have  convicted  me. 

I  protest  against  the  conviction,  against  the  decision  of  the  court.  I  do 
not  recognize  your  law,  jumbled  together  as  it  is  by  the  nobodies  of  by-gone 
centuries,  and  I  do  not  recognize  the  decision  of  the  court.  My  own  counsel 
have  conclusively  proven  from  the  decisions  of  equally  high  courts  that  a 
new  trial  must  be  granted  us.  The  State’s  attorney  quotes  three  times  as 
many  decisions  from  perhaps  still  higher  courts  to  prove  the  opposite,  and  I 
am  convinced  that  if,  in  another  trial,  these  decisions  should  be  supported  by 
twenty-five  volumes,  they  will  adduce  one  hundred  in  support  of  the  con¬ 
trary,  if  it  is  Anarchists  who  are  to  be  tried.  And  not  even  under  such  a 
law,  a  law  that  a  schoolboy  must  despise,  not  even  by  such  methods  have 
they  been  able  to  “legally”  convict  us.  They  have  suborned  perjury  to  boot. 

I  tell  you  frankly  and  openly,  I  am  for  force.  I  have  already  told  Cap¬ 
tain  Schaack,  “If  they  use  cannons  against  us,  we  shall  use  dynamite  against 
them.’' 


36 


ADDRESS  OF  LOUIS  LINGG 


I  repeat  that  I  am  the  enemy  of  the  “order”  of  today,  and  I  repeat  that, 
with  all  my  powers,  so  long  as  breath  remains  in  me,  I  shall  combat  it.  I 
declare  again,  frankly  and  openly,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  using  force.  I  have 
told  Captain  Schaack,  and  I  stand  by  it,  “If  you  cannonade  us,  we  shall 
dynamite  you.”  You  laugh!  Perhaps  you  think,  “You'll  throw  no  more 
bombs” ;  but  let  me  assure  you  that  I  die  happy  on  the  gallows,  so  confident 
am  I  that  the  hundreds  and  thousands  to  whom  I  have  spoken  will  remember 
my  words ;  and  when  you  shall  have  hanged  us,  then,  mark  my  words,  they 
will  do  the  bomb  throwing !  In  this  hope  I  say  to  you :  I  despise  you.  I 
despise  your  order,  your  laws,  your  force-propped  authority.  Hang  me  for  it ! 


cADDRESS  OF  GEORGE  ENGEL 

When,  in  the  year  1872,  I  left  Germany  because  it  had  become  impossible 
for  me  to  gain  there,  by  the  labor  of  my  hands,  a  livelihood  such  as  man  is 
worthy  to  enjoy — the  introduction  of  machinery  having  ruined  the  smaller 
craftsmen  and  made  the  outlook  for  the  future  appear  very  dark  to  them — I 
concluded  to  go  with  my  family  to  the  land  of  America,  the  land  that  had 
been  praised  to  me  by  so  many  as  the  land  of  liberty. 

On  the  occasion  of  my  arrival  at  Philadelphia,  on  the  8th  of  January, 
1873,  my  heart  swelled  with  joy  in  the  hope  and  in  the  belief  that  in  the 
future  I  would  live  among  free  men,  and  in  a  free  country.  I  made  up  my 
mind  to  become  a  good  citizen  of  this  country,  and  congratulated  myself  on 
having  left  Germany,  and  landed  in  this  glorious  republic.  And  I  believe  my 
past  history  will  bear  witness  that  I  have  ever  striven  to  be  a  good  citizen 
of  this  coiintry.  This  is  the  first  occasion  of  my  standing  before  an  Amer¬ 
ican  court,  and  on  this  occasion  it  is  murder  of  which  I  am  accused.  And 
for  what  reasons  do  I  stand  here?  For  what  reasons  am  I  accused  of  mur¬ 
der?  The  same  that  caused  me  to  leave  Germany — the  poverty,  the  misery 
of  the  working  classes. 

And  here,  too,  in  this  “free  republic,”  in  the  richest  country  of  the 
world,  there  are  numerous  proletarians  for  whom  no  table  is  set ;  who,  as 
outcasts  of  society,  stray  joylessly  through  life.  I  have  seen  human  beings 
gather  their  daily  food  from  the  garbage  heaps  of  the  streets,  to  quiet  there¬ 
with  their  gnawing  hunger. 

I  have  read  in  the  daily  papers  of  occurrences  which  prove  to  me  that 
here,  too,  in  this  great  “free  land,”  people  are  doomed  to  die  of  starvation. 
This  brought  me  to  reflection,  and  to  the  question :  What  are  the  peculiar 
causes  that  could  bring  about  such  a  condition  of  society?  I  then  began  to 
give  our  political  institutions  more  attention  than  formerly.  My  discoveries 
brought  to  me  the  knowledge  that  the  same  societary  evils  exist  here  that  exist 
in  Germany.  This  is  the  explanation  of  what  induced  me  to  study  the  social 
question,  to  become  a  Socialist.  And  I  proceeded  with  all  the  means  at 
my  command  to  make  myself  familiar  with  the  new  doctrine. 

When,  in  1878,  I  came  here  from  Philadelphia,  I  strove  to  better  my 
condition,  believing  it  would  be  less  difficult  to  establish  a  means  of  liveli¬ 
hood  here  than  in  Philadelphia,  where  I  had  tried  in  vain  to  make  a  living. 
But  here,  too,  I  found  myself  disappointed.  I  began  to  understand  that  it 
made  no  difference  to  the  proletarian,  whether  he  lived  in  New  York,  Phila¬ 
delphia,  or  Chicago.  In  the  factory  in  which  I  worked,  I  became  acquainted 
with  a  man  who  pointed  out  to  me  the  causes  that  brought  about  the  difficult 
and  fruitless  battles  of  the  workingmen  for  the  means  of  existence.  He 
explained  to  me,  by  the  logic  of  scientific  Socialism,  how  mistaken  I  was  in 
believing  that  I  could  make  an  independent  living  by  the  toil  of  my  hands,  so 
long  as  machinery,  raw  material,  etc.,  were  guaranteed  to  the  capitalists  as 
private  property  by  the  State.  That  I  might  further  enlighten  my  mind  in 
regard  to  these  facts,  I  purchased  with  money  earned  by  myself  and  family, 
sociological  works,  among  them  those  of  LaSalle,  Marx,  and  Henry  George. 
After  the  study  of  these  books,  it  became  clear  to  me  why  a  workingman 
could  not  decently  exist  in  this  rich  country.  I  now  began  to  think  of  ways 
and  means  to  remedy  this.  I  hit  upon  the  ballot  box;  for  it  had  been  told 
me  so  often  that  this  was  the  means  by  which  workingmen  could  better  their 
condition. 

I  took  part  in  politics  with  the  earnestness  of  a  good  citizen ;  but  I  was 
soon  to  find  that  the  teachings  of  a  “free  ballot  box”  are  a  myth,  and  that  I 


38 


ADDRESS  OF  GEORGE  ENGEL 

had  again  been  duped.  I  came  to  the  opinion  that  as  long  as  workingmen 
are  economically  enslaved  they  cannot  be  politically  free.  It  became  clear  to 
me  that  the  working  classes  would  never  bring  about  a  form  of  society  guar¬ 
anteeing  work,  bread,  and  a  happy  life  by  means  of  the  ballot. 

Before  I  had  lost  my  faith  in  the  ballot  box  the  following  occurrence^ 
transpired  which  proved  to  me  that  the  politicians  of  this  county  were  thor¬ 
oughly  corrupt.  When,  in  the  fourteenth  ward,  in  which  I  lived  and  had  the 
right  to  vote,  the  Social  Democratic  party  had  grown  to  such  dimensions  as 
to  make  it  dangerous  for  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties,  the  latter 
forthwith  united  and  took  stand  against  the  Social  Democrats.  This,  of 
course,  was  natural;  for  are  not  their  interests  identical?  And  as  the  Social 
Democrats  nevertheless  elected  their  candidates,  they  were  beaten  out  of  the 
fruits  of  their  victory  by  the  corrupt  schemes  of  the  old  political  parties.  The 
ballot  box  was  stolen  and  the  votes  so  “corrected”  that  it  became  impossible 
for  the  opposition  to  proclaim  their  candidates  elected.  The  workingmen 
sought  to  obtain  justice  through  the  courts,  but  it  was  all  in  vain.  The  trial 
cost  them  fifteen  hundred  dollars,  but  their  rights  they  never  obtained. 

Soon  enough  1  found  that  political  corruption  had  burrowed  through  the 
ranks  of  the  Social  Demociats.  I  left  this  party  and  joined  the  International 
Working  People’s  Association  that  was  just  being  organized.  The  members 
of  that  body  have  the  firm  conviction  that  the  workingman  can  free  himself 
from  the  tyranny  of  capitalism  only  through  force,  just  as  all  advances  of 
which  history  speaks  have  been  brought  about  through  force  alone.  We  see 
from  the  history  of  this  country  that  the  first  colonists  won  their  liberty  only 
through  force;  that  through  force  slavery  was  abolished,  and  just  as  the  man, 
who  agitated  against  slavery  in  this  country  had  to  ascend  the  gallows,  so 
also  must  we.  He  who  speaks  for  the  workingman  today  must  hang.  And 
why?  Because  this  republic  is  not  governed  by  people  who  have  obtained 
their  offices  honestly. 

Who  are  the  leaders  at  Washington  that  are  to  guard  the  interests  of 
this  nation?  Have  they  been  elected  by  the  people,  or  by  the  aid  of  money? 
They  have  no  right  to  make  laws  for  us,  because  they  were  not  elected  by 
the  people.  These  are  the  reasons  why  I  have  lost  all  respect  for  American 
laws. 

The  fact  that  through  the  improvement  of  machinery  so  many  men  are 
thrown  out  of  employment,  or  at  best,  working  but  half  the  time,  brings 
them  to  reflection.  They  have  leisure,  and  they  consider  how  their  condi¬ 
tions  can  be  changed.  Reading  matter  that  has  been  written  in  their  in¬ 
terest  gets  into  their  hands,  and,  faulty  though  their  education  may  be,  they 
can  nevertheless  cull  the  truths  contained  in  those  writings.  This,  of  course, 
is  not  pleasant  for  the  capitalistic  class,  but  they  cannot  prevent  it.  And  it 
is  my  firm  conviction  that  in  a  comparatively  short  time  the  great  mass  of 
proletarians  will  understand  that  they  can  be  freed  from  their  bonds  only 
through  Socialism.  One  must  consider  what  Carl  Schurz  said  scarcely  eight 
years  ago :  That,  “in  this  country  there  is  no  room  for  Socialism” ;  and  yet 
today  Socialism  stands  before  the  bar  of  the  court.  For  this  reason  it  is 
my  firm  conviction  that  if  these  few  years  sufficed  to  make  Socialism  one  of 
the  burning  questions  of  the  day,  it  will  require  but  a  short  time  more  to 
put  it  in  practical  operation. 

All  that  I  have  to  say  in  regard  to  my  conviction  is,  that  I  was  not  at 
all  surprised ;  for  it  has  ever  been  that  the  men  who  have  endeavored  to 
enlighten  their  fellow  men  have  been  thrown  into  prison  or  put  to  death, 
as  was  the  case  with  John  Brown.  I  found,  long  ago,  that  the  workingman 
has  no  more  rights  here  than  anywhere  else  in  the  world.  The  State’s 
attorney  has  stated  that  we  were  not  citizens.  I  have  been  a  citizen  this 
long  time ;  but  it  does  not  occur  to  me  to  appeal  for  my  rights  as  a  citizen, 
knowing  as  well  as  I  do,  that  this  does  not  make  a  particle  of  difference. 
Citizen  or  not — as  a  workingman  I  am  without  rights,  and  therefore  I  re- 


ADDRESS  OF  GEORGE  ENGEL 


39 


spect  neither  your  rights  nor  your  laws,  which  are  made  and  directed  by 
one  class  against  the  other — the  working  class. 

Of  what  does  my  crime  consist? 

That  I  have  labored  to  bring  about  a  system  of  society  by  which  it  is 
impossible  for  one  to  hoard  millions,  through  the  improvements  in  machin¬ 
ery,  while  the  great  masses  sink  to  degradation  and  misery.  As  water  and 
air  are  free  to  all,  so  should  inventions  of  scientific  men  be  applied  for  the 
benefit  of  all.  The  statute  laws  we  have  are  in  opposition  to  the  laws  of 
nature,  in  that  they  rob  the  great  masses  of  their  rights  to  “life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness.” 

I  am  too  much  a  man  of  feeling  not  to  battle  against  the  societary  con¬ 
ditions  of  today.  Every  considerate  person  must  combat  a  system  which 
makes  it  possible  for  the  individual  to  rake  and  hoard  millions  in  a  few 
years,  while  on  the  other  side,  thousands  become  tramps  and  beggars. 

Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  under  such  circumstances  men  arise  who 
strive  and  struggle  to  create  other  conditions,  where  humanity  shall  take 
precedence  of  all  other  considerations?  This  is  the  aim  of  Socialism,  and 
to  this  I  joyfully  subscribe. 

The  State’s  attorney  said  here  that  Anarchy  was  on  trial. 

Anarchism  and  Socialism  are  as  much  alike,  in  my  opinion,  as  one  egg 
is  like  another.  They  differ  only  in  their  tactics.  The  Anarchists  have 
abandoned  the  way  of  liberating  humanity  which  Socialists  would  take  to 
accomplish  this.  I  say:  Believe  no  more  in  the  ballot,  and  use  all  other 
means  at  your  command.  Because  we  have  done  so  we  stand  arraigned  here 
today — because  we  have  pointed  out  to  the  people  the  proper  way.  The  An¬ 
archists  are  being  hunted  and  persecuted  for  this  in  every  clime,  but  in 
the  face  of  it  all  Anarchism  is  gaining  more  and  more  adherents,  and  if  you 
cut  off  our  opportunities  of  open  agitation,  then  will  the  work  be  done 
secretly.  If  the  State’s  attorney  thinks  he  can  root  out  Socialism  by  hang¬ 
ing  seven  of  our  men  and  condemning  the  other  to  fifteen  years’  servitude, 
he  is  laboring  under  a  very  wrong  impression.  The  tactics  simply  will  be 
changed — that  is  all.  No  power  on  earth  can  rob  the  workingman  of  his 
knowledge  of  how  to  make  bombs — and  that  knowledge  he  possesses.  I  do 
not  wish  for  State’s  Attorney  Grinnell  and  his  assistant,  Furthman,  the  fate 
of  the  chief  of  police  Rumpff. 

If  Anarchism  could  be  rooted  out,  it  would  have  been  accomplished 
long  ago  in  other  countries.  On  the  night  on  which  the  first  bomb  in  this 
country  was  thrown,  I  was  in  my  apartments  at  home.  I  knew  nothing  of 
the  conspiracy  which  the  State’s  attorney  pretends  to  have  discovered. 

It  is  true  I  am  acquainted  with  several  of  my  fellow-defendants ;  with 
most  of  them,  however,  but  slightly,  through  seeing  them  at  meetings,  and 
hearing  them  speak.  Nor  do  I  deny,  that  I,  too,  have  spoken  at  meetings, 
saying  that,  if  every  workingman  had  a  bomb  in  his  pocket,  capitalistic  rule 
would  soon  come  to  an  end. 

That  is  my  opinion,  and  my  wish ;  it  became  my  conviction,  when  I  dis¬ 
covered  the  wickedness  of  the  capitalistic  conditions  of  the  day. 

When  hundreds  of  workingmen  have  been  destroyed  in  mines  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  faulty  preparations,  for  the  repairing  of  which  the  owners  were 
too  stingy,  the  capitalistic  papers  have  scarcely  noticed  it.  See  with  what 
satisfaction  and  cruelty  they  make  their  report,  when  here  and  there  work¬ 
ingmen  have  been  fired  upon,  while  striking  for  a  few  cents’  increase  in 
their  wages,  that  they  might  earn  only  a  scanty  subsistence. 

Can  anyone  feel  respect  for  a  government  that  accords  rights  only  to 
the  privileged  classes  and  none  to  the  workers?  We  have  seen  but  recently 
how  the  coal  barons  combined  to  form  a  conspiracy  to  raise  the  price  of 
coal,  while  at  the  same  time  reducing  the  already  low  wages  of  their  men. 
Are  they  accused  of  conspiracy  on  that  account?  But  when  workingmen 


40 


ADDRESS  OF  GEORGE  ENGEL 


dare  ask  an  increase  in  their  wages,  the  militia  and  the  police  are  sent  out 
to  shoot  them  down. 

For  such  a  government  as  this  I  can  feel  no  respect,  and  will  combat  it, 
despite  its  power,  despite  its  police,  despite  its  spies. 

I  hate  and  combat,  not  the  individual  capitalist,  but  the  system  that 
gives  him  those  privileges.  My  greatest  wish  is  that  workingmen  may  rec¬ 
ognize  who  are  their  friends  and  who  are  their  enemies. 

As  to  my  conviction,  brought  about  as  it  was,  through  capitalistic  in¬ 
fluence,  I  have  not  one  word  to  say. 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 

And  tho’  ye  caught  your  noble  prey  within  your  hangman’s  sordid  thrall; 

And  tho’  your  captive  was  led  forth  beneath  your  city’s  rampart  wall; 

And  tho’  the  grass  lies  o’er  her  green,  where  at  the  morning’s  early  red 
The  peasant  girl  brings  funeral  wreaths — I  tell  you  still — she  is  not  dead! 

And  tho’  from  off  the  lofty  brow  ye  cut  the  ringlets  flowing  long, 

And  tho’  ye’ve  mated  her  amid  the  thieves’  and  murderers’  hideous  throng, 
And  tho’  ye  gave  her  felon  fare — bade  felon  garb  her  livery  be, 

And  tho’  ye  set  the  oakum  task — I  tell  you  all — she  still  is  free! 

And  tho’  compelled  to  banishment,  ye  hunt  her  down  thro’  endless  lands; 

And  tho’  she  seeks  a  foreign  hearth,  and  silent  ’mid  its  ashes  stands; 

And  tho’  she  bathes  her  wounded  feet  where  foreign  streams  seek  foreign 
seas; 

Yet — yet — she  never  more  will  hang  her  harp  on  Babel’s  willow  trees! 

Ah,  no!  she  strikes  it  very  strong,  and  bids  their  loud  defiance  swell, 

And  as  she  marked  your  scaffold  erst,  she  mocks  your  banishment  as  well. 
She  sings  a  song  that  starts  you  up  astounded  from  your  slumbrous  seats. 
Until  your  heart — your  craven  heart — your  traitor  heart — with  terror  beats! 

No  song  of  plaint,  no  song  of  sighs  for  those  who  perished  unsubdued. 

Nor  yet  a  song  of  irony  at  wrong’s  fantastic  interlude — 

The  beggar’s  opera  that  ye  try  to  drag  out  thro’  its  lingering  scenes. 

Tho’  moth-eaten  the  purple  be  that  decks  your  tinsel  kings  and  queens. 

Oh,  no!  the  song  those  waters  hear  is  not  of  sorrow,  nor  dismay — 

’Tis  triumph  song — victorious  song — the  paeans  of  the  future’s  day — 

The  future — distant  now  no  more — her  prophet  voice  is  sounding  free. 

As  well  at  once  your  Godhead  spake:  I  was,  I  am,  and  I  will  be! 

Will  be — and  lead  the  nation  on  the  last  of  all  your  hosts  to  meet, 

And  on  your  necks,  your  heads,  your  crowns,  I’ll  plant  my  strong,  resistless 
feet! 

Avenger,  Liberator,  Judge — red  battles  on  my  pathway  hurled, 

I  stretch  forth  my  almighty  arm,  till  it  revivifies  the  world. 

Ye  see  me  only  in  your  cells;  ye  see  me  only  in  the  grave; 

Ye  see  me  only  wandering  lone,  beside  the  exile’s  sullen  wave — 

Ye  fools!  Do  I  not  live  where  ye  have  tried  to  pierce  in  vain? 

Rests  not  a  nook  for  me  to  dwell  in  every  heart  and  every  brain? 

In  every  brow  that  boldly  thinks,  erect  with  manhood’s  honest  pride — 

Does  not  each  bosom  shelter  me  that  beats  with  honor’s  generous  tide? 

Not  every  workshop,  brooding  woe?  not  every  hut  that  harbors  grief? 

Ha!  Am  I  not  the  Breath  of  Life,  that  pants  and  struggles  for  relief? 

’Tis  therefore  I  will  be — and  lead  the  people  yet  your  hosts  to  meet, 

And  on  your  necks,  your  heads,  your  crowns,  will  plant  my  strong,  resistless 
feet! 

It  is  no  boast — it  is  no  threat — thus  history’s  iron  law  decrees — 

The  day  grows  hot,  oh,  Babylon!  ’Tis  cool  beneath  thy  willow  trees! 

That  is  a  piece  of  poetry  written  by  Freiligrath,  called  “Revolution.” 
Freiligrath  is  a  German  writer,  and  every  intelligent  German  in  the  civilized 
world  has  that  piece  of  poetry  upon  his  book-shelves. 

Revolution — it  is  a  crime  in  what  is  sometimes  called  the  foremost  civil¬ 
ized  country  in  the  world,  to  be  a  Revolutionist,  and  yet  all  those  who  can 


42 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


read  the  works  of  Freiligrath  have  read  that  poem  with  rapture.  It  makes 
a  great  deal  of  difference,  perhaps,  what  kind  of  a  Revolutionist  a  man  is. 
The  men  who  have  been  on  trial  here  for  Anarchy  have  been  asked  the 
question  on  the  witness  stand  if  they  were  Revolutionists.  It  is  not  gen¬ 
erally  considered  a  crime  among  intellectual  people  to  be  a  Revolutionist,  but 
it  may  be  made  a  crime  if  the  Revolutionist  happens  to  be  poor. 

Your  honor,  I  was  brought  into  this  court  by  the  police  officers  and 
the  civil  authorities  of  the  city  of  Chicago  to  answer  to  the  charge  of  mur¬ 
der.  I  was  arrested  on  May  5,  held  by  the  coroner’s  jury  on  the  same  even¬ 
ing  as  accessory  to  the  crime  of  murder.  I  was  furnished  after  some  time 
with  an  indictment  which  the  grand  jury  had  passed,  or  approved,  charging 
me  with  that  crime.  I  answered  that  charge  in  this  court.  My  attorneys 
in  my  behalf  met  that  charge;  we  brought  evidence  which  we  thought  was 
competent  to  rebut  and  meet  the  charge  of  murder.  After  all  our  evidence 
was  put  in,  after  all  the  speeches  had  been  made  on  both  sides,  with  the 
exception  of  one,  we  were  suddenly  confronted  with  the  fact — and  there 
is  in  that  statement  of  the  State’s  attorney,  in  his  closing  argument,  an 
acknowledgment  that  the  charge  of  murder  had  not  been  proven — when  all 
the  witnesses  had  been  heard,  I  am  suddenly  told  that  I  am  being  tried  for 
Anarchy.  If  I  had  known  that  I  was  being  tried  for  Anarchy  I  could  have 
answered  that  charge.  I  could  have  justified  it  under  the  constitutional 
right  of  every  citizen  of  this  country,  and  more  than  the  right  which  any 
constitution  can  give,  the  natural  right  of  the  human  mind  to  draw  its 
conclusions  from  whatever  information  it  can  gain,  but  I  had  no  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  show  why  I  was  an  Anarchist.  I  was  told  that  I  was  to  be  hung 
for  being  an  Anarchist,  after  I  got  through  defending  myself  on  the  charge 
of  murder.  Now,  your  honor,  my  reputation,  my  associations,  my  history, 
as  far  as  the  lynx-eyed  detectives  of  Chicago  could  get  it,  has  been  raked 
up,  as  Mr.  Foster  has  said,  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave.  I  have  been 
charged  here  with  being  a  disturber  of  the  peace,  an  enemy  of  public  or¬ 
der,  and  generally  a  dangerous  man.  I  choose  now,  it  being  the  last  time 
that  I  shall  have  an  opportunity  to  speak,  to  go  back  a  few  years  into  my 
past  history,  and  perhaps  in  doing  so  I  shall  show  your  honor  the  reasons 
that  led  me  to  be  what  I  have  been,  and  for  which  today  I  am  not  ashamed 
and  have  no  apology  to  make. 

I  was  born,  as  I  have  told  you,  in  Lancashire,  and  if  there  is  a  place — 
I  know  that  the  so-called  patriots  of  this  country  have  from  mercenary  mo¬ 
tives  of  their  own,  tried  to  create  a  quarrel  between  England  and  America 
from  time  to  time  in  order  to  gain  a  certain  vote,  and  I  know  that  there  is 
some  justification  behind  it — but  if  there  is  a  place  on  this  footstool  that 
Americans  ought  to  look  to  with  gratitude,  it  is  Lancashire.  I  was  born 
there.  I  learned  there  to  hate  slavery.  I  learned  to  hate  kings  and  queens, 
and  unlike  the  State’s  attorney  in  this  case,  I  was  a  Republican,  though  I 
was  born  in  a  monarchy. 

There  are  some  men  who  never  grow  out  of  their  environments.  They 
never  progress.  They  never  advance  one  step.  If  they  are  born  in  Russia, 
Russia  is  the  grandest  country  in  the  world,  and  has  the  grandest  institu¬ 
tions.  If  they  are  born  in  China  it  is  the  same.  If  they  were  born  in 
Patagonia  it  would  have  been  the  same.  But  I,  as  a  child,  inquired,  and  I 
began  there  to  hate  kings,  and  I  tell  you  that  when  your  cotton  ports  on 
the  southern  sea-board  Were  blockaded— and  this  fact  has  gone  into  the 
literature  of  both  countries — the  patience  of  the  starving  operatives  of 
Lancashire  was  remarkable,  and  the  noble  Lincoln,  acknowledging  that,  sent 
two  ship-loads  of  provisions  to  keep  them  from  starving.  The  propertied 
class  of  England,  in  sympathy  with  the  slaveholders  of  the  South,  I  know, 
would  have  interfered  in  order  to  prevent  the  cementing  of  the  Union  and 
the  success  of  the  North.  But  the  operatives,  the  intelligent  operatives  of 
Lancashire,  one  of  whom  I  was  when  a  child,  were  the  friends  of  the 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


43 


North,  and  they  cheerfully  and  patiently  bore  with  all  the  starvation  which 
they  suffered  through  that  terrible  struggle. 

I  say  there  are  some  people  who  never  get  out  of  their  environments.  I 
was  a  Republican  when  I  was  a  child  I  recognized  the  fact  that  I  might  be 
wrong,  and,  recognizing  that  fact,  I  grew  from  one  point  to  another.  The 
first  speech  I  ever  delivered  in  my  life  was  in  the  streets  of  my  native  town, 
and  I  was  but  a  mere  child ;  it  was  in  support  of  the  Union  as  against  the 
views  of  those  who  denounced  the  North  in  their  struggle  for  supremacy  in 
the  late  war.  That  was  the  first  speech  I  delivered,  and  it  shows  that  then 
I  had  some  sympathy  in  my  heart  for  those  who  could  do  me  no  good ;  that 
I  could  feel  for  others.  Mr.  Ingham  has  said  that  while  other  people  were 
making  their  fortunes  these  men  were  advocating  sedition  or  drinking  beer. 
It  is  as  noble  a  thing  for  a  man  to  drink  beer  as  it  is  for  a  man  to  make 
his  fortune  off  other  people’s  labor ;  and  I  tell  you  that  a  man  is  of  no  use 
to  this  world,  of  no  use  to  society  or  the  neighborhood  in  which  he  lives, 
who  has  no  other  object  in  view  than  making  a  fortune  for  himself  and  his 
family,  little  caring  what  becomes  of  those  around  him.  And  it  is  because 
we  have  recognized  this  fact — and  it  is  a  philosophical  fact,  a  logical  fact 
that  no  man  can  get  away  from,  and  Mr.  Ingham  has  not  got  the  intelligence 
to  perceive  it — that  the  greatest  security  to  human  happiness  depends  upon 
the  widespread  happiness  of  those  around  you.  You  have  no  security  for 
your  fortunes.  You  can  have  no  security  for  your  comforts  as  long  as  there 
is  around  you  a  dissatisfied,  a  despoiled,  and  suffering  community.  I  assert 
here  as  a  fact,  that  Vanderbilt  and  Jay  Gould  would  be  happier  men  today 
if  they  had  but  $20,000  to  their  names  and  every  employee  who  is  now  in 
their  employment  were  above  want  and  above  the  danger  of  want.  There 
would  be  less  irritation,  less  of  that  trouble  and  bother  of  clashing  and 
conflicting  of  interests  than  there  is,  which  must  necessarily  bother  these 
men  considerably,  and  keep  them  awake  nights  possibly. 

I  have  never  hesitated  when  I  have  seen  my  way  clearly  according  to 
my  lights,  to  follow  it.  I  have  always  endeavored  to  hew  to  the  line,  let 
the  chips  fall  where  they  would.  Some  people  do  not  do  that.  That  is 
what  is  the  trouble  with  the  world.  A  great  many  people  ask,  when  they 
find  what  their  duty  is,  does  it  pay?  If  it  pays  they  will  follow  it,  and  they 
care  not  where  the  payment  comes  from. 

About  the  second  speech,  perhaps,  that  I  ever  made  in  my  life  was  after 
I  had  become  a  member  of  the  Methodist  church,  and  to  show  that  I  was  a 
perambulating  talking  machine  then,  I  will  say  here  that  I  visited  different 
towns  in  Lancashire  and  spoke  in  the  open  air  to  audiences  because  my 
thoroughness  of  character  compelled  me  to  do  it.  I  felt  that  that  religion 
which  I  thought  I  possessed,  and  which  I  thought  was  calculated  to  better 
the  world,  was  something  that  was  worth  while  for  me  to  use  my  energies 
in  propagating,  and  I  did  it.  I  could  not  help  it.  There  are  sloths  that  are 
sometimes  called  men  who  are  never  influenced  by  anything  of  that  kind, 
but  I  was  not  of  that  character  and  that  is  the  reason  that  I  am  here  today. 
So  intense  and  earnest  was  I  at  that  time  that  I  was  at  one  and  the  same 
time  the  Sunday  school  superintendent  of  a  little  Sunday  school,  a  class 
teacher,  a  local  preacher,  and  what  was  called  an  exhorter ;  held  four  dif¬ 
ferent  positions. 

I  came  to  the  United  States  in  1868.  I  have  preached  in  Ohio,  and  I 
came  to  Chicago  in  1869.  There  are  monuments  of  beauty,  of  stability,  and 
evidences  of  progress  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  you  can  hardly  go  through 
a  street  in  this  city  that  I  have  not  dropped  my  sweat  upon,  that  had  been 
produced  by  the  labor  of  my  hands.  And  just  here  let  me  tell  you  that 
when  the  indictment  had  been  procured  against  me  and  my  comrades  here, 
it  was  accompanied  by  the  statement  that  these  men  had  been  deluding  their 
dupes  in  order  to  make  money  out  of  them.  When  the  trial  was  in  progress 
the  only  man  who  could  have  answered  the  question  as  to  whether  we  had 


44 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


made  money  out  of  our  agitation  was  Zeller,  the  secretary  of  the  Cen¬ 
tral  Labor  Union,  and  when  he  was  asked  the  question  whether  we 
ever  received  any  money  for  speaking  and  organizing  unions  in  that 
organization,  the  gentleman  who  had  been  instrumental  in  attaching 
that  to  the  indictment  in  order  to  prejudice  the  people  against  us  be¬ 
fore  the  trial  should  come  on  against  us — for  there  is  nothing  in  the  world 
that  can  prejudice  a  man  so  much  as  to  be  charged  with  having  imposed 
upon  some  one  for  mercenary  motives,  and  this  is  creditable  to  society — 
when  the  trial  came  on  and  this  man  who  could  have  testified  to  that,  who 
could  have  substantiated  it  if  it  had  been  true,  was  asked  the  question, 
each  one  of  the  gentlemen  who  were  interested  in  its  being  proven  true  for 
their  side  of  the  case  at  once  sprang  to  their  feet  and  objected  to  the  ques¬ 
tion  being  asked.  We  have  been  tried  by  a  jury  that  has  found  us  guilty. 
You  will  be  tried  by  a  jury  now  that  will  find  you  guilty. 

Being  of  an  inquiring  disposition  or  turn  of  mind,  and  having  ob¬ 
served  that  there  was  something  wrong  in  our  social  system,  I  attended 
some  meetings  of  workingmen  and  compared  what  they  said  with  my  own 
observation.  I  knew  there  was  something  wrong. 

My  ideas  did  not  become  settled  as  to  what  was  the  remedy,  but  when 
they  did,  I  carried  the  same  energy  and  the  same  determination  to  bring 
about  that  remedy  that  I  had  applied  to  ideas  which  I  had  possessed  years 
before.  There  is  always  a  period  in  every  individual’s  life  when  some  sym¬ 
pathetic  chord  is  touched  by  some  other  person.  That  is  the  open  sesame 
that  carries  conviction.  The  ground  may  have  all  been  prepared.  The  evi¬ 
dence  may  all  have  been  accumulated,  but  it  has  not  formed  any  shape ;  in 
fact,  the  child  has  not  been  born.  The  new  idea  has  not  impressed  itself 
thoroughly  when  that  sympathetic  chord  is  touched,  and  the  person  is  thor¬ 
oughly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  idea.  It  was  so  in  my  investigation 
of  political  economy.  I  knew  there  was  something  wrong,  but  I  did  not 
know  what  the  remedy  was,  but  discussing  the  condition  of  things  and  the 
different  remedies  one  day,  a  person  said  to  me  that  Socialism  meant  equal 
opportunities — and  that  was  the  touch.  From  that  time  I  became  a  Social¬ 
ist  ;  I  learned  more  and  more  what  it  was.  I  knew  that  I  had  found  the 
right  thing;  and  I  had  found  the  medicine  that  was  calculated  to  cure  the 
ills  of  society.  Having  found  it  I  had  a  right  to  advocate  it,  and  I  did. 
The  constitution  of  the  United  States,  when  it  says :  “The  right  of  free 
speech  shall  not  be  abridged,”  gives  every  man  the  right  to  speak  his 
thoughts. 

I  have  advocated  the  principles  of  Socialism  and  social  equality,  and  for 
that  and  no  other  reason  am  I  here,  and  is  sentence  of  death  to  be  pro¬ 
nounced  upon  me.  What  is  Socialism?  Taking  somebody  else’s  property? 
That  is  what  Socialism  is  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term.  No;  but 
if  I  were  to  answer  it  as  shortly  and  as  curtly  as  it  is  answered  by  its  ene¬ 
mies,  I  would  say  it  is  preventing  somebody  else  from  taking  your  property. 

But  Socialism  is  equality.  Socialism  recognizes  the  fact  that  no  man 
in  society  is  responsible  for  what  he  is ;  that  all  the  ills  that  are  in  society 
are  the  production  of  poverty ;  and  scientific  Socialism  says  that  you  must 
go  to  the  .root  of  the  evil.  There  is  no  criminal  statistician  in  the  world 
but  will  acknowledge  that  all  crime,  when  traced  to  its  origin,  is  the  prod¬ 
uct  of  poverty.  It  has  been  said  that  it  was  inflammatory  for  me  to  say 
that  the  present  social  system  degraded  men  until  they  became  mere  animals. 
Go  through  this  city  into  the  low  lodging  houses  where  men  are  huddled 
together  into  the  smallest  possible  space,  living  in  an  infernal  atmosphere 
of  death  and  disease,  and  I  will  ask  you  to  draw  your  silks  and  broad¬ 
cloths  close  to  you  when  these  men  pass  you.  Do  you  think  that  these 
men  deliberately,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  what  they  are  doing,  choose  to 
become  that  class  of  animals?  Not  one  of  them.  They  are  the  products 
of  conditions,  of  certain  environments  in  which  they  were  born,  and  which 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


45 


have  impelled  them  resistlessly  into  what  they  are.  And  we  have  this  load¬ 
stone.  You  who  wish  it  could  be  taken  from  the  shoulders  of  society,  what 
is  it?  When  those  men  were  children,  put  them  into  an  environment  where 
they  would  have  had  the  best  results  of  civilization  around  them,  and  they 
would  never  have  willfully  chosen  a  condition  like  that.  Some  cynic  might 
say  that  this  would  be  a  very  nice  thing  for  these  men.  Society,  with  its 
rapidity  of  production  of  the  means  of  existence,  is  capable  of  doing  that 
without  doing  an  injury  to  a  single  individual;  and  the  great  masses  of 
wealth  owned  by  individuals  in  this  and  the  old  world  have  been  produced 
in  exactly  the  same  proportion  as  these  men  have  been  degraded — and  they 
never  could  have  been  accumulated  in  any  other  way.  I  do  not  charge 
that  every  capitalist  willfully  and  maliciously  conspires  to  bring  about  these 
results,  but  1  do  charge  that  it  has  been  done,  and  I  do  charge  that  it  is  a 
very  undesirable  condition  of  things,  and  I  claim  that  Socialism  would  cure 
the  world  of  that  ulcer. 

These  are  my  ideas  in  short  on  Socialism.  The  ultra  patriotic  senti¬ 
ment  of  the  American  people — and  I  suppose  the  same  comparative  senti¬ 
ment  is  felt  in  England,  France  and  Germany — is  that  no  man  in  this  country 
need  be  poor.  The  class  who  are  not  poor  think  so.  The  class  who  are 
poor  are  beginning  to  think  differently;  that  under  existing  conditions  it  is 
impossible  that  some  should  not  be  poor. 

Fortunes  are  made,  and  I  will  tell  you  how  it  is  done.  The  Chicago 
Tribune,  in  its  New  Year’s  issue  of  1885,  I  believe,  drew  attention  to  the 
production  of  the  means  of  human  use  and  necessity  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
during  the  previous  year.  It  carefully  estimated  the  cost  of  the  raw  ma¬ 
terial,  the  cost  of  machinery,  the  rent  of  buildings,  the  interest  on  money, 
and  the  wages  to  employees.  It  went  into  different  lines  of  production, 
and,  summing  up,  the  result  was  this :  That  in  a  year’s  time  each  man  work¬ 
ing  as  a  wage-laborer  in  the  city  of  Chicago  had  added  to  the  wealth  of 
this  city — by  whomsoever  it  was  possessed  makes  no  difference — $2,764.  The 
average  wages  paid  for  that  average  product  of  each  worker  was  $457 — a 
little  more  than  one-sixth.  And  yet  the  political  economists  of  the  free  trade 
and  the  protective  schools  were  asking :  “Why  is  it  that  we  have  overpro¬ 
duction?”  You  compel  a  man  to  work  and  produce  $2,764  worth  of  goods 
and  you  give  him  $457  to  buy  them  with,  and  you  ask :  “Why  is  it  that  we 
have  overproduction,  and  why  is  it  that  our  warehouses  are  full  of  goods, 
and  our  workshops  have  to  shut  up,  and  our  workmen  are  turned  out  on 
the  highway  because  there  is  nothing  to  do?”  What  is  this  tending  to?  Let 
me  show  the  change  of  conditions  as  shown  in  Boston  in  forty  years. 
Charles  Dickens,  a  man  of  acute  perceptions,  visited  this  country  forty  years 
ago,  and  he  said  in  his  American  notes  that  the  sight  of  a  beggar  in  the 
streets  of  Boston  at  that  time  would  have  created  as  much  consternation  as 
the  sight  of  an  angel  with  a  drawn  sword.  A  Boston  paper  in 
the  winter  of  1884-85  stated  that  there  were  some  quarters  in  Boston  where 
to  own  a  stove  was  to  be  a  comparative  aristocrat.  The  poor  people  who 
lived  in  the  neighborhood  paid  a  certain  sum  of  money  to  rent  the  holes 
on  the  top  of  the  stove  that  belonged  to  the  aristocrats.  You  see  the 
change,  and  there  is  this  comparative  change  in  the  working  classes  of  that 
city,  and  in  every  large  city  in  the  Union.  It  is  a  noted  fact  that  within  the 
last  twenty  or  thirty  years  the  farms  of  this  country  have  been  gradually  go¬ 
ing  out  of  the  possession  of  the  actual  cultivators  until  today  there  is  a  little 
more  than  a  quarter  of  the  actual  cultivators  of  farms  in  this  country  who 
are  renters ;  and  within  twenty  years  in  the  states  of  Iowa  and  Illinois  the 
mortgages  on  farms  have  increased  thirty-three  per  cent,  of  the  actual  value 
of  the  farms.  Is  it  not  enough  to  make  any  thinking  man  ask  if  there  is  not 
something  wrong  somewhere?  Possibly  it  would  be  answered,  “Yes,  a  man 
has  a  right  to  inquire  whether  there  is  something  wrong  or  not,  but  for 
God’s  sake,  don’t  think  that  Socialism  will  do  it  any  good,  or  if  you  do  we 


46 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


will  hang  you!  Jt  is  all  right  to  think,  but  we  will  punish  you  for  your  con¬ 
clusions  !” 

Parsons,  in  his  testimony,  repeated  what  he  had  said  at  the  Haymarket 
on  the  night  of  May  4,  when  he  stated  that  this  was  an  American  question, 
because  the  patriotic  tricksters  who  have  been  telling  the  people  to  worship 
the  American  flag,  while  they  quietly  put  their  hands  in  their  pockets  and 
robbed  them — they  have  said  that  this  is  merely  a  European  question.  It 
is  an  American  question,  and  the  close  contact  of  nations  cemented  by  the 
facilities  of  civilization,  is  bringing  all  the  questions  that  affect  one  people 
to  affect  all  people  equally  all  over  the  world.  What  affects  the  European 
laborer  and  his  employer  affects  the  American  laborer  and  his  American 
employer,  and  the  relationship  is  the  same  between  the  two  classes. 

In  the  winter  of  1884-85  one  hundred  and  twenty  American  girls  of 
fourteen  and  sixteen  years  of  age  were  driven  from  their  homes  by  the 
shutting  down  of  the  Merrimac  mills  in  Connecticut,  and  they  were  com¬ 
pelled  to  walk  through  the  bleak  New  England  hills  and  find  refuge  in  out¬ 
houses  and  haystacks,  and  numbers  of  them  undoubtedly  found  their  way 
to  lives  of  shame.  And  I  say  here  and  now  that  the  man  who  can  look  upon 
such  conditions  as  these  and  not  know  that  society  is  bringing  itself  to  the 
verge  of  a  crisis  which  is  terrible  to  think  of,  is  blind;  and  the  man  who  can 
look  upon  suffering  like  this  and  not  feel  stirred  to  do  something  to  change 
such  conditions,  has  not  got  anything  in  his  heart  but  the  feelings  of  the 
tiger,  hungry  for  prey.  In  this  city  of  Chicago  children  are  working  at  very 
tender  ages.  Going  home  one  very  cold  night  in  the  winter  of  1884,  two 
little  girls  ran  up  to  me  and  begged  of  me  to  go  home  with  them.  I  asked 
them  why.  They  said :  “A  man  down  there  has  been  offering  us  money.”  It 
was  seven  o’clock  at  night  and  snowing;  I  asked  them  where  they  had  been 
so  late.  They  said:  “We  have  been  working  in  such  a  store.”  Children, 
babies  turned  out  from  their  mothers’  hearth  to  make  a  living,  their  fathers 
perhaps  dead — in  this  case  they  were.  The  civilization  that  will  not  and 
cannot  support  a  widow  so  that  she  will  not  have  to  turn  her  children  out 
to  such  temptations  as  that  is  not  worth  respecting,  and  the  man  who  will 
not  try  to  change  it  is  no  man.  Talking  with  those  children  as  I  went 
home  with  them — for  they  lived  not  far  from  me — I  could  notice  the  com¬ 
parative  boldness  in  the  two  children,  they  being  of  the  same  age.  One  of 
them  told  me  she  had  been  working  three  years  and  the  other  a  year.  There 
was  that  shyness,  at  least  something  remained  of  it,  the  coyness,  which  is 
about  a  child  of  tender  age  to  a  stranger,  about  the  one  that  had  only  been 
away  from  the  hearth-side  one  year;  but  in  the  other  one,  that  had  been 
away  three  years,  there  was  not  a  particle  of  it,  and  she  was  a  head  shorter 
than  the  child  that  had  the  advantage  of  living  at  home  two  years  more  of 
her  existence. 

Carter  Harrison  noticed  the  degraded  condition  of  a  class  of  persons  in 
this  community,  and  he  called  the  justices  of  the  peace  of  this  city  to  con¬ 
sult  with  him,  a  year  ago  last  winter.  They  wanted  to  get  rid  of  the  street¬ 
walkers,  who  were  so  numerous  that  it  was  a  disgrace  to  the  city.  It  was 
very  laudable  in  Harrison  and  the  justices  of  the  peace  to  get  rid  of  them 
if  they  could.  The  remedy  proposed  was  to  arrest  them,  and  the  first  time 
fine  them  lightly,  and  the  next  time  fine  them  more,  and  they  would  keep  on 
fining  them  more  and  more  until  they  got  rid  of  them.  It  is  a  known  fact 
that  there  is  no  possibility  of  a  young,  unmarried  woman,  who  has  not  a 
brother  or  father  to  assist  her,  getting  a  living  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  with  a 
few  exceptions.  A  friend  of  mine,  a  labor  agitator,  was  asked  by  a  young 
lady  to  procure  her  a  position.  He  went  to  one  of  your  large  establishments, 
and  they  said:  “Yes,  we  can  give  her  a  position,  but  she  has  got  to  dress 
tastily  and  nicely  and  neatly,  and  look  well,  and  we  will  give  her  from  three 
to  five  dollars  a  week.”  And  you  propose  to  get  rid  of  these  things  by  fining 
those  who  are  compelled  to'  resort  to  such  extremes  to  live.  I  tell  you  these 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


47 


things  to  show  you  that  the  question  is  an  American  question.  It  is  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  th’e  nineteenth  century. 

I  am  charged  with  having  made  some  inflammatory  harangues  within 
the  last  few  years.  It  has  been  testified  to  here  that  I  made  a  speech  at  the 
Twelfth  street  Turner  Hall  in  1885.  The  language  I  used  on  that  occasion 
has  been  referred  to.  To  show  the  character  of  that  meeting,  and  that  of 
the  organization  to  which  I  belong,  I  have  only  to  say  that  that  meeting  was 
called  in  pursuance  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Socialists  to  find  out 
whether  they  were  right  or  wrong,  and  to  compare  their  views  with  the  views 
of  gentlemen  who  continually  asserted  that  they  were  wrong.  Those  gen¬ 
tlemen  were  invited  there  to  discuss  the  question,  and  would  have  been  given 
an  opportunity  and  as  much  time  as  any  Socialistic  speaker  in  that  meeting 
to  reply  to  the  creed  of  Socialism.  I  do  not  think  it  was  claimed  that  I 
said  anything  very  inflammatory  at  that  meeting.  The  city  was  placarded 
with  bills  inviting  the  professional  and  business  men  to  come  there  and  dis¬ 
cuss  those  questions  with  us.  They  did  not  come  in  any  great  force.  I  was 
charged  with  having,  at  Mueller’s  Hall,  as  chairman  of  the  meeting,  called 
upon  the  audience  to  dispute  with  the  Socialists  and  controvert  anything 
that  might  have  been  said  in  behalf  of  private  capitalism,  as  this  would  be 
the  last  opportunity  before  we  began  to  take  their  property.  The  man  who 
testified  to  that  knows  under  what  circumstances  it  was  said.  It  was  said 
because  the  critics  on  Socialism  had  charged  us  with  a  desire  to  take  the 
property  of  others,  instead  of  examining  into  our  position ;  and  the  au¬ 
dience  understood  it  was  a  joke  as  a  sort  of  a  take-off  on  the  criticisms  on 
Socialism. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  reporters  of  the  papers  are  a  most  intelli¬ 
gent  (?)  class  of  men.  I  do  not  know  any  class  of  people  among  whom  I 
have  found  so  many  stupid  people,  and  I  have  a  very  extensive  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  them.  With  regard  to  what  was  stated  about  me  at  one  time, 
when  I  was  charged  with  making  inflammatory  statements  here,  I  wish  to 
say  that  at  that  time  I  was  in  Cincinnati,  and  I  can  prove  it  by  a  thousand 
persons  of  Cincinnati.  Mr.  Spies  went  with  me  to  the  depot  the  night  be¬ 
fore  and  bought  me  a  ticket.  I  will  speak  a  little  further  about  my  friends, 
the  reporters,  because  the  reporters  have  been  depended  upon  to  produce 
the  conviction  in  this  case.  It  is  well  known  in  this  and  every  reading  com¬ 
munity  that  reports  in  the  newspapers  cannot  be  depended  upon.  There  is 
not  a  public  speaker  in  this  country  but  what  has  had  cause  to  complain  of 
the  reports  of  his  speeches  in  the  newspapers.  So  intolerable  has  this  be¬ 
come  that  the  chief  magistrate  of  this  country,  less  than  a  year  ago,  stated 
— and  it  was  published  all  through  the  country — that  there  never  was  an  age 
in  the  world  in  which  newspaper  lying  existed  to  the  extent  that  it  does 
now,  and  there  never  was  a  country  in  which  it  existed  to  the  extent  that 
it  does  in  this.  Since  my  incarceration  in  jail,  Mr.  Harrison  has  been  so 
utterly  disgusted  with  the  promises  of  the  reporters  to  correctly  report  news, 
that  he  has  given  orders  to  his  subordinates  at  the  headquarters  of  the  city 
department  to  refuse  to  give  them  any  more  news.  “It  is  no  use ;  you  will 
lie  about  it.  I  have  tried  you  and  tried  you,  and  you  have  lied  about  it,  and 
I  will  give  you  no  more  news,”  he  has  said.  And  yet  we  have  been  con¬ 
victed  on  this  kind  of  testimony.  Reporters  have  been  brought  here  to 
prove  that  I  was  a  conspirator  and  was  intending  to  sack  Michigan  avenue, 
intending  to  create  a  riot  and  revolt  in  this  city,  by  quotations  from  my 
speeches.  I  have  shown  you,  my  friends — I  am  speaking  to  you  as  well  as 
to  the  court,  and  I  am  speaking  to  the  country — that  reports  of  newspapers 
cannot  be  depended  upon,  and  a  man  whose  life  is  placed  in  jeopardy  on 
the  bare  report  of  a  newspaper  reporter,  is  as  liable  to  be  murdered  as  not. 
At  Twelfth  Street  Turner  Hall  I  made  a  speech  concerning  the  riot  in  Lon¬ 
don.  On  that  occasion  I  stated  that  the  same  causes  in  Chicago  would  pro¬ 
duce  the  same  results  that  we  had  seen  in  London,  and  that  the  privileged 


48 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


classes  of  this  city  who  had  read  of  the  homeless  and  down-trodden  and 
desperately  poor  of  London  creating  the  havoc  and  consternation  that  they 
had  in  the  East  End  of  London  by  throwing  bricks  through  the  Carleton 
Club  windows,  need  not  be  surprised  if  the  same  causes  here  would  bring 
out  a  mob  which  would  march  down  Michigan  avenue  and  throw  a  brick 
through  the  window  of  the  Calumet  .Club.  I  said  that  the  same  causes  ex¬ 
isting  here  would  produce  the  same  results.  A  reporter  of  one  of  the  morn¬ 
ing  papers  came  into  the  hall  after  I  had  got  through,  and  was  sitting  down 
in  the  hall,  and  the  next  morning  he  stated  that  Samuel  Fielden  had  said 
that  he  would  lead  a  mob  down  Michigan  avenue  and  he  himself  would 
throw  a  brick  through  the  window  of  the  Calumet  Club.  And  it  is  on  such 
testimony  as  this  that  I  have  been  convicted  of  murder. 

The  Board  of  Trade  meeting  has  been  referred  to,  and  it  has  been 
claimed  by  that  intellectual  class  of  people,  the  detectives,  that  that  night  I 
advised  the  people  to  go  in  there,  and  partake  of  their  twenty  dollar  supper. 
Johnson,  himself,*  though  not  the  most  truthful  of  persons,  says  he  did  not 
hear  anything  of  that  kind.  I  will  say  here  for  the  edification  of  the  gentle¬ 
men  who  have  produced  this  conviction,  I  defy  them  to  find  a  single  report 
of  that  meeting  in  any  of  the  morning  papers  that  bears  such  a  statement, 
and  they  all  contained  reports  of  it.  They  come  in  here  and  give  evidence 
worse  than  their  remarkable  reports.  Not  one  reporter  in  the  next  morn¬ 
ing’s  papers  reported  me  as  having  said  anything  of  the  kind.  What  I  did 
say  on  that  occasion,  was  that  the  Board  of  Trade  of  this  city  had  received 
considerable  eulogy  from  the  press  of  this  country  for  the  grand  structure 
they  had  erected  in  which  to  trade  on  the  means  of  existence  of  the  people 
of  the  country.  It  was  claimed  I  said  that  that  monument  of  architectural 
beauty  had  cost  nearly  $2,000,000.  I  repeat  this  now,  because  any  of  you 
who  read  the  papers  that  morning  will  remember  that  you  have  seen  this 
report.  I  said  before  it  had  been  in  existence  many  years  as  a  Board  of 
Trade,  it  would  have  cost  the  people  of  Chicago  and  the  Northwest  two 
billion  dollars.  I  said  nothing  about  going  in  there.  I  said  that  the  eulogy 
that  had  been  given  to  these  men  should  not  go  unrebuked ;  that  the  work¬ 
ing  classes,  on  whose  substance  the  Board  of  Trade  had  been  built,  had  been 
called  to  that  meeting  to  discuss  this  question,  and  to  get  up  a  demonstration 
which  would  march  around  the  Board  of  Trade  and  show  them  that  not  all 
the  community  was  eulogizing  them  and  their  business;  that  there  was  an 
element  in  it  which  disapproved  of  Boards  of  Trade.  That  was  all  there 
was  of  that  speech. 

Much  has  been  said  of  the  American  Group  meetings.  In  the  spring  of 
1880  a  gentleman  came  here  from  Washington,  and  attended  our  meetings. 
He  had  studied  the  labor  question.  He  listened  to  what  we  had  to  say,  and 
disapproved  our  position.  I  challenged  him  to  a  public  discussion.  He  came 
and  stayed  at  the  Palmer  House,  and  the  next  Sunday  we  had  a  debate  on 
the  principles  of  Socialism,  he  claiming  that  these  were  not  the  means  by 
which  the  condition  of  society  would  be  renovated,  and  I  claiming  that  they 
were.  Since  this  trial  has  been  in  progress  that  gentleman  has  written  a 
letter  to  us  informing  us  that  he  was  willing:  to  come  upon  the  stand  here 
and  testify  that  our  meetings  were  not  for  the  purpose  of  inciting  people  to 
riot,  but  merely  for  the  discussion  of  economic  questions.  And  that  was  all 
the  meetings  were  for.  I  was  not  indicted  for  inciting  to  riot.  If  I  had 
been,  I  could  have  brought  a  good  deal  of  this  evidence  in.  Twenty  men 
were  in  the  witness  room  ready  to  testify  to  the  Board  of  Trade  meeting  and 
the  language  used  there  on  that  and  other  occasions  where  we  had  spoken  :  but 
we  thought  we  were  being  tried  for  murder.  We  found  out  afterwards  we 
were  being  tried  for  Anarchy,  and  that  was  the  reason  we  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  bring  those  men  upon  the  stand.  There  was  a  separate  indict- 


*  A  Pinkerton  uetective,  witness  for  the  Sta^e. 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


49 


ment  for  inciting  to  riot,  as  well  as  the  indictment  for  murder,  and  that  evi¬ 
dence  would  have  been  proper  to  combat  the  charge  of  inciting  to  riot. 

After  the  Board  of  Trade  demonstration  we  came  back  to  No.  107  Fifth 
avenue,  and  Mr.  Parsons  and  Spies  and  I  spoke  from  the  window.  I  told 
the  people  on  that  occasion  that  they  had  shown  that  they  disapproved  of 
Boards  of  Trade;  that  they  had  possibly  put  a  bee  in  the  bonnet  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  men.  I  advised  them  to  go  home  and  study  political  econ¬ 
omy  and  learn  what  was  their  position  in  society,  but  not  one  word  advising 
them  to  go  to  Marshall  Field’s.  But  it  is  very  clear  why  there  should  have 
been  so  much  testimony  brought  in  here  regarding  Marshall  Field.  The 
foreman  of  the  jury  was  one  of  Marshall  Field’s  salesmen.  He  depended 
upon  him  for  his  daily  wages ;  he  depended  on  him  for  preferment.  A  wit¬ 
ness  was  brought  in  here  who  testified  before  the  coroner’s  jury  to  hearing 
a  conversation  in  Crane’s  alley  previous  to  the  Haymarket  meeting,  between 
Spies  and  Schwab,  and  got  them  held  to  the  grand  jury,  and  Marshall  Field 
has  given  that  man  a  job.  This  is  brought  in  before  the  man  on  the  jury, 
who  is  dependent  on  Marshall  Field  for  his  living.  He  has  given  a  job  to 
the  man  who  gave  such  damaging  testimony  before  the  coroner’s  jury  in  or¬ 
der  to  get  our  conviction.  Why,  was  it  not  plain  to  anybody  why  there 
should  have  been  so  much  Marshall  Field  lugged  in  here?  When  it  was 
shown  to  the  employee  of  Marshall  Field,  who  is  on  the  jury,  that  his  em¬ 
ployer  has  given  a  job  to  the  principal  witness  against  the  prisoners,  since 
giving  his  evidence  against  them  at  the  coroner’s  inquest,  was  it  not  a  hint 
to  the  juror  as  to  what  kind  of  a  verdict  his  employer  wanted?  On  no  occa¬ 
sion,  except  as  illustrating  a  point,  has  anybody,  at  any  Socialistic  meeting 
that  I  ever  attended,  advised  anybody  to  go  to  Marshall  Field’s  and  take 
anything.  We  have  pointed,  perhaps,  to  Marshall  Field.  I,  on  the  lake  front, 
have  pointed  to  Pullman’s  building  there  to  illustrate  a  point;  and  the 
English  language  might  as  well  be  changed  to  the  Patagonian  language  if 
illustrations  are  not  to  be  used.  At  the  large  demonstration  at  the  Market 
Square,  when  there  were  10,000  people  there  before  they  marched  to  Ogden’s 
Grove,  Parsons  and  I  spoke  there,  and  I  distinctly  told  them  that  the  So¬ 
cialists  did  not  propose  the  destruction  of  property  or  the  robbing  of  houses. 
I  pointed  at  the  buildings,  but  did  not  propose  anything  of  that  kind.  I 
have  told  them  so  many  a  time. 

All  the  meetings  of  the  American  Group  were  for  the  purpose  of  dis¬ 
cussing  things.  Of  course,  in  the  discussion  the  persons  on  the  different 
sides  always  advocate  their  own  views ;  therefore  they  were  for  the  advocacy 
of  anything,  and  the  discussion  of  anything,  and  many  men  of  different 
shades  of  opinion  have  been  at  these  meetings,  and  know  that  there  were  no 
meetings  of  the  American  Group  held  for  the  purpose  of  treason  or  inciting 
to  riot.  You  may  have  satisfied  these  twelve  jurymen  that  there  was,  but 
these  men  outside  know  it  was  not  so. 

I  went  to  a  special  meeting  on  the  night  of  the  fourth  of  May,  at  107 
Fifth  avenue,  and  it  was  necessary  that  I  should  go  there,  for  I  was  treas¬ 
urer  of  the  organization,  otherwise  I  should  not  have  been  at  the  Haymarket 
meeting.  On  the  Sunday  previous  I  met  a  man  at  No.  54  West  Lake  street, 
who  told  me  he  had  been  at  a  meeting  of  the  Trade  and  Labor  Assembly, 
and  at  that  time  the  organizer  of  the  Central  Labor  Union  came  to  me  and 
asked  me  to  speak  Tuesday  night  at  Workingmen’s  Hall,  No.  376  West 
Twelfth  street.  I  think  I  agreed  to  go  there.  Monday  night  I  was  at  No. 
54  Lake  street,  and  spoke  to  the  wagon  makers,  and  went  home;  Tuesday  I 
was  out  of  town  all  day.  I  went  ten  miles  in  the  country  as  a  teamster,  in 
which  business  I  have  been  engaged  in  deluding  the  workingmen  and  mak¬ 
ing  money  out  of  them !  I  was  out  of  town  all  that  day,  and  could  not  per¬ 
sonally  have  known  of  any  arrangements  for  the  meeting  at  the  Haymarket 
until  I  got  to  No.  107  Fifth  avenue,  about  eight  o’clock.  I  should  have  gone 
to  the  other  meeting,  but  what  little  things  change  so  much  the  current  of 


50 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


a  man’s  life!  Just  the  fact  of  my  seeing  an  advertisement  in  the  News  will 
cause  my  death,  for  if  I  had  not  seen  it  I  should  not  have  gone.  I  have 
committed  -no  more  crime,  and  have  no  more  knowledge  or  intention  of 
committing  crime,  than  1  had  when  I  was  on  my  wagon  that  day.  It  has 
been  ingeniously  urged  that  the  American  Group  never  met  there  before, 
meaning  to  convey  the  idea  to  the  jury  that  they  went  there  in  pursuance 
of  a  conspiracy.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  they  met  there  many  a  time 
and  there  were  many  reasons  why  an  honest  man  might  have  assumed  that 
their  meeting  there  that  night  was  not  suspicious,  for  all  the  halls  in  Greiff’s 
were  occupied  long  before,  for  the  days  on  which  they  were  to  be  used  came 
during  the  eight  hour  excitement.  Even  if  it  were  true  that  the  American 
Group  had  not  met  there  before,  this  is  a  plausible  reason  in  itself.  I  have 
shown  the  jury  here  a  handbill  calling  upon  the  working-women  to  organize, 
and  it  was  for  that  reason  that  I  was  called  to  No.  107  Fifth  avenue,  on  the 
night  of  the  fourth  of  May;  and  after  Rau  came  back  from  the  Haymarket, 
he  said  there  was  nobody  there  but  Spies  and  a  large  audience.  That  is 
enough  to  show  that  Spies  should  know  I  was  at  No.  107. 

Your  honor  has  repeated  my  Haymarket  speech  very  frequently  here, 
and  it  would  seem  as  though  it  was  a  tender  morsel  to  roll  under  the 
tongue  of  those  interested  in  this  conviction.  On  that  occasion  I  said  that 
Mr.  Foran  had  made  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Congress.  I  claim  here  that 
there  is  no  man  that  understands  the  English  language  but  will  say  that 
there  was  more  threat,  more  violence,  more  of  an  incitement  to  riot  in  the 
speech  of  Foran  than  anything  said  on  the  Haymarket  that  night.  Foran’s 
speech  was  published  in  Chicago.  In  discussing  the  Arbitration  Bill  he  said 
that  it  was  useless  for  the  workingmen  of  this  country  to  expect  a  remedy 
for  their  grievances  by  legislation.  He  said  further:  “Only  when  the  rich 
men  of  this  country  understand  that  it  is  dangerous  for  them  to  live  in  a 
community  where  there  are  dissatisfied  workingmen,  then  and  not  till  then 
will  the  labor  question  be  solved.”  There  is  nothing  in  the  speeches  of  the 
Flaymarket  that  is  as  violent  as  that.  What  would  have  been  said  through¬ 
out  the  country  if  the  police  force  of  Washington  had  gone  into  the  chamber 
of  Congress  and  cleaned  it  out  on  account  of  what  Foran  had  said?  Would 
it  have  been  justified  anywhere? 

It  was  claimed  here  that  it  was  because  of  the  violence  of  Fielden’s 
speech  that  the  police  were  called.  I  would  humbly  submit  to  those  who 
make  that  claim  that  they  read  up  the  testimony  given  at  the  coroner’s  in¬ 
quest  by  the  detectives  and  policemen  who  testified  there.  There  was  hardly 
one  of  them  that  knew  a  word  that  Fielden  had  said;  but  something  must 
be  done  to  hold  Fielden.  They  knew  that  his  statement  before  the  coroner 
was  true.  The  prosecution  knew  it.  They  undoubtedly,  with  their  detect¬ 
ives,  had  inquired,  and  they  knew  he  had  done  nothing.  Therefore,  they 
must  present  this  speech  to  the  jury  and  claim  that  it  was  that  which  brought 
out  the  police.  The  statements  before  the  coroner’s  jury  did  not  claim  any¬ 
thing  of  that  kind,  and  it  was  not  brought  out  at  the  coroner’s  jury  until  I 
made  my  statement  there,  and  that  was  the  last  statement  made  there.  Cor¬ 
oner  Hertz  said:  “Did  you  say  this?”  No  man  knew  I  had  said  it  until  I 
acknowledged  it.  Bonfield  did  not  know  that  Fielden  had  said  anything  of 
that  kind,  and  he  did  not  testify  to  it.  Captain  Ward  did  not  know. 

There  are  many  things  about  that  coroner’s  inquest.  It  has  been  stated 
by  several  policemen  and  two  detectives  that  when  I  got  down  from  the 
wagon  I  called  out,  “Here  come  the  bloodhounds;  you  do  your  duty  and  I’ll 
do  mine.”  And  a  lieutenant  of  a  very  intellectual  cast  of  countenance  swore 
here  that  when  the  police  came  up  to  the  crossing,  half  a  block  away,  he 
heard  Fielden  say?  “Here  come  the  bloodhounds;  you  do  your  duty  and  I 
will  do  mine.”  He  has  sworn  here — and  I  think  the  fact  that  a  policeman 
could  be  made  to  swear  to  such  an  apparent  lie  as  this  must,  to  any  intelli¬ 
gent  person,  be  disgusting — that  when  they  got  to  the  wagon,  and  Captain 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


5 1 

Ward  told  the  meeting  to  disperse,  I  deliberately,  on  that  wagon,  pulled  a 
revolver  and  shot  at  Bonfield  and  Ward.  Bonfield  said  he  could  have 
touched  me  with  his  hands  when  I  stepped  from  the  wagon,  and  Ward  said 
the  same  thing,  and  they  didn’t  see  it.  Lieutenant  Steele,  in  a  very  signifi¬ 
cant  manner,  when  asked  if  he  saw  me  shoot,  or  heard  me  say,  “Here  come 
the  bloodhounds ;  you  do  your  duty,  and  I’ll  do  mine,”  said :  “I  will  tell 
nothing  but  what  I  know.”  He  was  standing  at  the  tail  end  of  the  wagon, 
where  he  could  touch  me,  and  he  says:  “I  heard  no  such  language.”  Wessler 
stated  that  he  ran  up  the  sidewalk,  and  when  he  came  back  I  was  firing  at 
the  police.  He  claims  that  he  shot  me,  and  he  brings  Foley,  whom  he 
claims  to  have  run  up  the  sidewalk  with  him  and  come  back  with  him,  to 
substantiate  the  fact  that  Fielden  was  standing  at  the  wagon  and  shooting 
at  the  policemen  when  they  came  back,  and  that  he  shot  me  as  I  stood  be¬ 
hind  the  wheel,  on  the  sidewalk.  He  says :  “Fielden  rolled  under  the  wagon 
after  he  was  shot.”  Foley  says  the  man  that  Wessler  shot  at  the  wagon 
was  lying  under  the  wagon  between  the  two  fore  wheels,  one  on  each  side. 
If  it  had  been  a  fair  jury  would  it  have  convicted  any  man  on  that  testi¬ 
mony? 

Krueger,  who  claims  to  have  had  a  duel  with  me  there,  claims  that  as 
soon  as  I  jumped  from  the  wagon  I  ran  there  and  began  firing  at  him,  and 
that  he  shot  me  as  I  ran  into  the  alley.  And  yet  I  was  shooting  there  as 
these  men  came  back  from  up  the  street,  and  was  shot  by  Wessler,  as  they 
say,  after  their  return.  This  other  man  claims  he  shot  me  as  I  was  running 
up  the  alley.  Then  comes  the  truthful  James  Bonfield,  who  claims  to  have 
sneaked  around  the  corridor  of  the  Central  Station  jail  on  the  night  of  the 
fifth  of  May.  He  sneaked  up  against  the  wall  where  Fielden  could  not  see 
him,  and  he  listened  to  a  conversation  between  Fielden  and  Knox  and  Gra¬ 
ham,  reporters.  He  is  brought  on  to  corroborate  the  statement  of  Krueger 
that  Fielden  ran  into  the  alley.  He  claims  he  overheard  Fielden  admit  to 
these  reporters  that  he  ran  through  the  alley.  The  State  brings  the  reporter 
Knox  upon  the  stand.  They  did  not  bring  Graham  after  they  got  through 
v/ith  Knox.  Knox  was  asked :  “Did  Fielden  say  to  you  that  he  went 
through  the  alley?”  “No;  he  said  he  went  around  the  corner.”  Now,  no 
man  would  state  that  if  he  had  gone  into  the  alley,  because  the  wagon  was 
close  to  the  alley,  and  the  corner  meant  the  corner  of  Randolph  street.  I 
did  state  that  I  went  around  the  corner  after  I  had  passed  the  alley.  That 
proves  somebody  was  lying.  They  did  not  bring  Graham  on  to  substantiate 
James  Bonfield.  I  ask  any  reasonable  man  to  consider  all  this  testimony; 
to  consider  whether  there  could  have  been  a  jury  that  was  fair-minded  that 
could  have  said  beyond  all  question  of  doubt,  that  Fielden  did  fire  into  that 
crowd  of  police.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say  on  that  question.  But  even  the 
worst  newspaper  in  the  city  of  Chicago  admitted  before  the  conclusion  of 
this  case  that  it  was  exceedingly  doubtful  whether  Fielden  had  fired  a  shot 
there  or  not,  or  whether  he  had  ever  hallowed  out,  “You  do  your  duty  and 
I  will  do  mine.  Here  come  the  bloodhounds.”  Let  us  put  a  hypothetical 
question  now :  If  I  had  said  something  which  might  have  been  construed  in¬ 
to  an  incitement  to  riot,  but  if,  when  the  policemen  came  there,  I  did  every¬ 
thing  a  man  could  do  to  have  the  meeting  disperse  peaceably,  in  obedience 
to  the  demand  of  Ward  to  have  it  disperse — and  there  is  no  other  claim 
than  this,  which  is  contradicted  by  the  State’s  attorney’s  claim  against  me, 
and  that  I  did  nothing  but  walk  away  peaceably — could  a  fair-minded  jury 
have  convicted  me?  You  will  remember  that  the  reporter,  Freeman — and 
Freeman  is  a  State  witness — who  knelt  down  on  the  sidewalk  within  three 
feet  of  the  wheel  where  it  is  said  I  was  shooting,  swears  positively  that 
there  was  nobody  at  that  wheel.  It  is  acknowledged  by  Foley  and  Wessler 
that  there  were  two  young  men  standing  up  against  the  wall  of  Crane’s  fac¬ 
tory  nearly  opposite  the  wagon.  Those  men  came  here  voluntarily  and  swore 
there  was  no  shooting  done  from  that  place;  and  the  State’s  attorney  in  his 


52 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


closing  argument  practically  admits  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  testi¬ 
mony  is  the  truth.  He  said  if  Fielden  did  not  shoot  at  the  police,  then  he  is 
not  made  of  as  good  clay  as  I  thought  him  to  be,  which  means,  if  Fielden 
did  not  shoot,  then  he  is  no  man.  He  ought  to  have  done  so  if  he  was  any 
good.  This  is  not  garbled,  it  is  not  colored.  Is  it  not  as  strong  as  it  could 
be  against  the  possibility  of  my  having  done  anything  of  that  kind  there? 
Now,  if  I  did  not  shoot  there,  if  I  did  not  call  to  the  people,  “Here  come 
the  bloodhounds ;  you  do  your  duty  and  I  will  do  mine,”  and  if  I,  as  testified 
by  Bonfield,  Steel  and  Ward,  went  away  peaceably,  giving  an  example  to 
the  meeting,  if  some  one  else  goes  and  commits  murder,  am  I  responsible 
for  his  act?  Mr.  Ward  will  corroborate  me  when  I  say  that  I  had  no  de¬ 
sire  that  that  meeting  should  be  anything  else  than  peaceable,  and  that  there 
should  be  resistance  to  the  officers.  If  it  had  not  been  intended  that  I  should 
Le  connected  with  some  act  of  that  kind,  and  by  that  means,  the  papers  of 
this  city  would  call  Fielden  a  coward,  who  would  run  at  the  first  sight  of 
the  police.  But  no.  They  elevate  me  to  the  very  pinnacle  of  bravery  in  order 
to  hang  me. 

I  do  not  suppose  that  there  ever  was  a  criminal  asked  to  state  why  death 
should  not  be  passed  upon  him  that  ever  succeeded  in  convincing  the  judge 
that  it  should  not.  I  do  not  expect  that  this  will  be  any  exception  to  the 
rule.  I  can  only  conclude  that  the  reason  this  is  asked  of  each  prisoner  is 
that  he  may,  having  failed  to  convince  the  jury  that  has  tried  him,  convince 
the  great  jury  that  will  sit  upon  his  case  when  he  is  gone,  that  he  is  not 
guilty.  I  expect  to  succeed  in  convincing  the  latter,  though  I  have  failed  in 
the  former.  I  claim  here  now,  on  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  lan¬ 
guage  which  I  have  used  at  the  Haymarket,  and  which  I  have  admitted  I 
have  used,  and  there  is  not  a  man  in  the  row  by  the  State’s  attorney  who 
will  claim  that  I  have  shown  a  desire  on  this  witness  stand  to  deny  anything 
that  I  have  done — everything  that  I  have  done  has  been  open  and  above¬ 
board.  If  there  is  anything  that  I  have  hated  in  this  world  ever  since  I 
knew  anything  at  all,  it  was  trickery.  If  I  had  been  a  trickster  I  could  have 
possibly  been  somewhere  else  today. 

I  have  been  charged  with  having  said:  “Throttle  the  law!”  Your  honor 
will  bear  in  mind  that  I  had  quoted  from  Foran’s  speech  when  I  said  that, 
and  it  was  a  deduction,  assuming  that  Foran  spoke  the  truth.  If  it  is  true, 
as  Foran  says,  that  nothing  can  be  got  by  legislation — legislation  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  for  the  interests  of  the  community — if  it  is  not  for  their  interest, 
it  certainly  operates  against  that  portion  of  them  whose  interests  it  does  not 
subserve. 

Legislation  cannot  be  made  that  will  not  affect  somebody  in  some  par¬ 
ticular  way.  It  must  affect  them  in  some  way.  Then  if  nothing  can  be  got 
by  legislation,  and  hundreds  of  men  are  paid  every  year  to  legislate  for  the 
community,  it  is  a  foregone  fact,  and  its  logic  cannot  be  disputed,  that  if 
that  portion  of  the  community  which  can  receive  no  benefit  from  legislation 
does  not  throttle  that  law  which  is  doing  this  legislation,  it  will  throttle  them. 
The  word  “throttle”  is  supposed  to  be  a  terrible  word.  There  would  not  have 
been  anybody  in  this  community  who  would  have  claimed  that  the  word  is  a 
bad  word  to  use  if  the  bomb  had  not  been  thrown  on  the  night  of  May  4.  It 
is  a  word  widely  used  as  meaning  to  abolish ;  if  you  take  the  metaphors  from 
the  English  language,  you  have  no  language  at  all.  It  is  not  necessary,  your 
honor,  that  because  a  man  says  “throttle  the  law”  he  means  “kill  the  police¬ 
men.”  There  is  no  such  necessary  connection.  If  I  were  to  advise  a  man  to 
kill  Phil.  Armour,  would  you  conclude  by  that  that  I  advised  somebody  to 
kill  his  servant  or  somebody  employed  by  him?  I  was  speaking  of  these 
laws  which  could  do  no  benefit  to  the  working  classes,  and  which  have  been 
referred  to  by  Foran.  Now,  policemen  generally  are  not  men  of  very  intel¬ 
lectual  caliber.  They  are  not  men  who  ought  in  any  civilized  community  to 
be  made  the  censors  of  speech  or  of  the  press.  If  I,  on  that  night,  had  used 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


53 


language  which  could  reasonably  have  been  interpreted  as  being  incendiary, 
how  is  it  that  every  witness  on  both  sides  of  this  case  has  testified  that  the 
meeting  was  getting  on  more  peaceful  during  the  delivery  of  my  speech? 
Surely  that  shows  that  the  meeting  did  not  understand  it  as  inciting  to  riot, 
and  that  it  had  no  such  effect  upon  the  meeting. 

When  Harrison  left  Mr.  Bonfield,  it  is  claimed  by  both  of  them  that 
Harrison  said  to  Bonfield,  “I  guess  there  is  no  danger.  There  will  be  no 
trouble.”  And  Bonfield  says,  “Well,  I  will  keep  the  police  here  and  see  if 
there  will  be  any  trouble.”  The  testimony  as  to  the  character  of  the  meet¬ 
ing  shows  that  it  became  more  quiet  during  the  delivery  of  Fielden’s  speech. 
Where  was  the  danger,  then,  that  justified  the  marching  of  200  armed  police 
upon  it?  If  I  had  said  something  that  should  not  have  been  said — some¬ 
thing  that  was  an  incitement  to  riot,  there  was  still  no  necessity  of  these 
policemen  provoking  a  riot  that  night,  because  there  was  no  indication  that 
there  was  going  to  be  trouble.  It  has  never  been  claimed  by  the  prosecution 
that  we  had  anything  to  do  with  what  they  had  heard  as  to  the  possible  blow¬ 
ing  up  of  the  freight  house.  They  could  have  let  the  meeting  disperse  peace¬ 
ably,  of  its  own  volition,  and  they  could  have  come  to  my  house  and  arrested 
me  for  that  incendiary  language,  if  it  had  been  such.  There  was  no  neces¬ 
sity  for  provoking  a  collision  that  night,  because  the  meeting  has  been  proven 
overwhelmingly  to  have  been  a  peaceful  meeting  up  to  the  close,  and  I  claim 
that  the  language,  reasonably  interpreted,  was  not  necessarily  incendiary.  A 
newspaper  of  this  city  is  discussing  the  coal  monopoly,  as  it  is  called — per¬ 
haps  that  is  incendiary  language.  The  constitution  of  the  United  States  has 
never  clearly  defined  what  incendiary  language  is,  that  I  know  of.  If  it  had 
I  should  have  informed  myself  of  what  it  was,  and  tried  to  keep  myself 
within  the  bounds. 

A  recess  was  taken  until  two  o’clock. 

Upon  the  reconvening  of  the  court  in  the  afternoon,  Mr.  Fielden  con¬ 
tinued  his  speech. 

Your  honor:  When  we  adjourned  for  dinner  I  was  speaking  to  you 
about  my  version  of  the  meeting,  of  the  language  used  at  the  Haymarket  on 
May  4.  I  was  speaking  to  you  about  the  character  of  that  meeting  and  the 
unjustifiable  interruption  of  it.  I  was  trying  to  point  out  to  you  and  show 
you  by  the  evidence  that  it  was  a  peaceable  meeting;  that  there  was  no  in¬ 
dication  in  the  demeanor  of  the  crowd  of  a  desire  to  commit  any  act  which 
would  make  them  liable  to  arrest  and  punishment.  I  was  giving  you  my 
version  of  the  sentence,  “throttle  the  law.”  I  told  you  that  it  was  a  deduc¬ 
tion  based  upon  an  assumption,  and,  in  my  opinion,  was  a  logical  deduction, 
that  if  laws  are  enacted  for  the  community,  which  cannot  benefit  one  class  in 
that  community,  it  is  the  interest  of  that  class  that  the  laws  should  be  abol¬ 
ished  and  the  law-making  machines  discontinued.  I  ought  to  know,  myself, 
what  I  meant.  Your  honor  has  put  an  interpretation  on  the  expression, 
“throttle  the  law,”  that  it  meant  to  kill  the  police  because  they  were  the 
servants  of  the  law ;  and  that  throttling  the  law  could  not  mean  what  I  said 
in  its  literal  sense,  it  being  an  intangible  thing  to  do.  Now,  in  the  light  of 
the  principles  that  have  been  sworn  to  on  this  stand  by  witnesses  for  the 
State,  I  say  in  the  definition  which  Parsons  gave  of  the  intentions  and  ob¬ 
jects  of  the  Socialists,  in  addressing  the  meeting  at  the  Haymarket,  it  was 
not  the  intention  of  that  organization  to  take  any  man’s  life;  that  it  was 
merely  the  system  that  made  such  men  possible  that  we  are  aiming  at.  When 
we  consider  that  it  has  been  proven  by  witnesses  on  both  sides  that  that  was 
the  object  of  the  organization  to  which  Mr.  Parsons  and  I  belonged,  will 
not  the  words,  “throttle  the  law,”  bear  another  interpretation,  and  a  more 
plausible  one?  The  law  is  an  institution;  the  policemen  are  a  necessary 
part  of  it.  It  is  the  doing  away  with  the  institution,  not  the  policemen — and 
I  defy  any  one  to  prove  that,  on  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  language  used 


54 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


that  night,  there  was  anything  in  that  speech  that  could  reasonably  be  called 
incendiary. 

You  will  bear  in  mind  that  I  said,  “Men  in  their  blind  rage  attacked  Mc¬ 
Cormick’s,  and  the  police  shot  them  down.”  Now,  certainly  a  man  who 
charges  a  class  of  people  with  doing  something  “in  their  blind  rage”  cannot 
be  said  to  approve  of  their  acts;  cannot  be  said  to  be  encouraging  that 
blindness,  and  the  fact  that  I  said  “in  their  blind  rage”  shows  that  I  did  not 
approve  of  attacking  McCormick’s;  that  there  was  an  underlying  meaning  to 
it,  which,  when  read  between  the  lines,  explains  all  that  it  should  logically 
have  meant.  “When  men  in  their  blind  rage  attacked  McCormick’s,  the 
police  shot  them  down.”  There  was  a  conflict  between  these  men.  As  I  have 
claimed  here  and  elsewhere  in  the  city,  these  men  did  it  in  their  ignorance. 
They  did  not  understand  it.  They  looked  upon  McCormick  as  a  cause  of 
their  trouble.  We  have  been  represented — or  at  least  they  had  drawn  that 
inference  from  disputes  which  had  occurred  with  McCormick  in  the  last  year 
or  two — that  it  was  such  men  as  McCormick  that  were  the  cause  of  their 
trouble,  and  in  their  blindness  and  their  ignorance  they  attacked  McCormick’s 
building.  It  is  not  disputed  that  1  said  the  words  just  quoted.  Now,  if  these 
men  had  understood,  as  Socialists  understand  it,  this  industrial  question,  they 
would  have  known  that  it  was  foolish  and  ridiculous  to  think  that  they  could 
better  their  condition  by  attacking  a  person’s  property.  If  they  had  under¬ 
stood  this  social  question  as  Socialists  understand  it,  they  would  have  under¬ 
stood  that  it  was  the  system  and  not  the  instrument  of  the  system,  not  the 
victim  of  that  system.  I  claim  that  McCormick,  Jay  Gould,  and  William  H. 
Vanderbilt  are  as  much  the  victims  of  the  system  which  obtains,  and  which 
I  claim  is  an  unjust  one,  as  are  the  beggars  who  walk  the  streets  and  crowd 
the  station  houses  to  keep  themselves  from  being  frozen  to  death  in  the 
winter.  And  it  is  these  particular  classes  that  are  arrayed  against  each  other. 
True,  one  of  the  victims  gets  a  better  share  of  the  profits  of  the  system  than 
the  other.  They  are  no  less  the  victims,  and  the  conflicts  and  quarrels  that 
exist  among  them  affect  them  both  more  or  less.  Therefore  I  say  that  when 
I  said,  “Men  in  their  blind  rage  attacked  McCormick’s,  and  the  police  shot 
them  down,”  it  was  carrying  out  that  idea,  which  was  intended  to  be  con¬ 
veyed  to  these  people,  that  it  was  the  system  which  protected  McCormick’s 
interests.  But,  as  I  went  on,  I  said :  “When  McCormick  attacked  their  in¬ 
terests,  the  police  did  not  attack  McCormick.”  I  had  claimed  that  the  pres¬ 
ent  social  system  is  sustained  more  in  the  interests  of  one  class  than  in  the 
interests  of  another.  I  claim  that  it  is  necessarily  so.  Now,  McCormick’s 
factory  may  be  said  to  be  his  tools,  if  you  please — his  means  of  getting  a 
living.  And  certainly  when  the  rioters  attack  his  factory  they  attack  his 
means  of  livelihood.  The  police  came  to  McCormick’s  defense.  I  believe, 
your  honor — and  1  am  well  acquainted  with  the  policemen  in  the  district  in 
which  I  live — that  there  is  not  one  of  them  who  believes  that  I  entered  into  a 
conspiracy  to  kill  a  policeman.  I  have  no  better  friends  than  the  policemen 
who  have  traveled  that  beat.  And  I  do  not  say  that  policemen  go  to  attack 
rioters  because  it  is  their  desire  to  do  so.  It  is  because  they  are  the  pre¬ 
servers  of  peace  under  the  present  social  relations,  and  they  were  sent  there 
to  keep  these  men  from  destroying  the  means  of  livelihood  of  McCormick. 

I  have  frequently  said  that  there  was  a  conflict  between  two  classes  of 
society.  They  must  necessarily  come  into  contact  with  each  other  under  the 
present  regulations.  And  there  are  times  when  McCormick,  in  his  blind  con¬ 
ception  of  what  he  thinks  is  his  interest,  attacks  the  means  of  livelihood  of 
those  who  have  no  property  and  no  machines.  I  said  that  when  this  side  of 
the  case  was  presented  to  the  present  organization,  which  maintains  the  pres¬ 
ent  social  relation,  there  was  nobody  that  came  to  the  assistance  of  the  classes 
which  were  attacked  by  McCormick.  I  drew  the  inference  that  the  arrange¬ 
ments  were  wrong,  because  of  the  fact  that  those  who  protect  McCormick 
when  he  is  attacked,  do  not  protect  the  working  classes  when  they  are  at- 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


55 


tacked  by  McCormick.  They  will  necessarily  come  in  conflict  under  these 
regulations.  How?  Sometimes  McCormick  has  reduced  wages.  Wages  are 
the  means  of  existence  of  those  who  have  no  property,  and  who  are  com¬ 
pelled  to  live  by  the  sale  of  their  labor.  It  is  their  machinery,  and  the  police 
have  never  come  to  the  assistance  of  the  working  classes,  when  their  means 
of  living  have  been  attacked  in  that  way.  Sometimes  they  are  attacked  by  a 
machine.  Do  not  understand  me  to  say  that  I  blame  McCormick  for  buying 
a  machine,  because  under  the  present  social  and  industrial  system  men  have 
the  right  to  buy  machines,  if  the  system  is  right.  But  if  the  system  is  wrong, 
they  have  not,  and  it  is  the  system  that  is  responsible,  and  not  they. 

I  am  given  to  understand,  and  I  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  about  a  year 
ago  McCormick  introduced  some  moulding  machines  into  his  factory.  Mc¬ 
Cormick  employed  about  125  moulders  before  the  introduction  of  these  ma¬ 
chines.  Before  that  time  he  had  a  strike  of  his  men  owing  to  a  dispute  about 
wages,  or  about  the  regulations  of  the  Union  to  which  these  moulders  be¬ 
longed.  McCormick  had  acceded  to  certain  terms.  He  had  to  do  it  because 
of  the  strength  of  the  Union.  He  could  not  get  any  moulders  to  do  his  work 
because  the  Union  resolved  that  it  would  not  work  except  its  terms  were 
acceded  to.  But  there  was  something  else  which  McCormick  found  out 
that  was  not  subject  to  any  Union.  That  was  a  moulding  machine.  And 
when  McCormick  had  got  possession  of  the  moulding  machine  he  had  got 
possession  of  machinery  which  did  with  the  assistance  of  twenty-five  men 
what  it  had  required  125  men  to  do  before.  Don’t  you  think,  your  honor, 
that  that  was  an  attack  upon  the  interests  of  these  twenty  men  out  of 
twenty-five,  or  100  out  of  125?  It  would  not  make  any  difference  whether 
he  had  a  right  to  do  it.  I  am  not  speaking  of  that  phase  of  the  question. 
These  men  had  families  after  the  introduction  of  those  machines  as  they  had 
before.  The  families  cried  for  bread.  The  children  cried  for  shoes,  and  the 
women  cried  perhaps  for  a  sewing  machine.  These  hundred  men  were 
turned  out,  and  then  McCormick  said:  “Now  I  am  master  of  the  situation. 
I  will  take  back  all  the  conditions  that  I  have  made  with  my  men  when  I 
needed  125  of  them.” 

The  rate  of  wages  is  regulated  by  the  number  of  men  who  are  out  of 
employment.  When  four  men  out  of  five  are  turned  out  of  employment, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  world  for  these  four  men  to  do  but  to  bid  and  see 
how  much  lower  each  one  can  work  on  that  man’s  job  who  is  retained  than 
the  others.  It  tends  to  a  reduction  of  wages.  And  the  introduction  of  ma¬ 
chinery  in  that  way  is  a  direct  attack  upon  the  interests  of  those  who  have 
no  means  and  cannot  have  any.  Maxwell  Brothers  introduced  some  box¬ 
making  machines  about  a  year  ago.  There  was  quite  a  lively  quarrel 
between  them  and  the  box-nailers.  I  understand  that  after  the  introduction 
of  those  box-making  machines  only  one  man  was  required  to  do  the  work 
that  was  formerly  done  by  two  and  a  half — two  persons  could  do  the  work 
of  five.  Now,  I  claimed  in  public  speeches  and  discussions  that  these  men 
who  fought  about  the  introduction  of  the  box  machines  did  not  understand 
the  real  question  at  issue.  Improved  machinery — I  claim  now  what  I  have 
claimed  all  along  in  the  discussion  of  this  industrial  problem — is  calculated  to 
benefit  all  classes  of  humanity  and  society.  But  it  is  the  use  to  which  they 
are  put.  If  they  can  be  bought  by  one  person  and  used  in  the  interests  of 
that  person,  so  that  he  can  hire  labor  cheap,  or  dispense  with  labor,  they  are 
a  benefit  to  no  person  save  the  man  who  has  money  enough  to  purchase  a 
machine,  and  they  are  a  direct  injury  under  such  regulations  to  those  who 
cannot  purchase  a  machine.  It  is  ridiculous  to  argue  that  it  requires  men  to 
make  machines  and  it  makes  work  in  that  way.  If  it  required  as  much 
labor  to  make  them  and  as  much  expenditure  to  make  them  as  it  did  away 
with  labor,  there  would  be  no  object  in  a  man’s  buying  the  machine.  That 
answers  itself.  So  that  under  the  present  regulations — and  this  language  of 
mine  will  bear  the  interpretation  which  I  have  given,  when  you  take  every- 


56 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


thing  into  consideration,  and  I  think  it  is  the  more  plausible  interpretation — 
and  I  will  say  to  you  here  that,  when  Mr.  English  brought  this  report,  he 
admitted  it  to  be  but  a  garbled  report  of  my  speech — my  conception  of 
justice  is  this,  that  a  man  ought  never  to  be  allowed  to  testify  against  a 
man  who  is  on  trial  for  his  life,  when  he  admits,  before  he  gives  his  testi¬ 
mony,  that  it  is  incorrect.  1  do  not  think  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice 
that  such  testimony  should  be  given.  Mr.  English  admits  that  before  he  left 
the  Tribune  office  that  night  to  go  to  that  meeting,  he  was  advised  not  to 
bring  a  correct  report.  If  he  had  brought  a  correct  report  he  might  have 
been  discharged.  He  was  instructed  not  to  do  it.  That  was  his  work  for 
that  night,  to  only  take  what  he  considered  the  inflammatory  or  incendiary 
portions  of  the  speeches.  You  can  take  no  speech  delivered  by  any  person 
and  do  it  justice  by  extracting  what  you  consider  the  inflammatory  portion. 
I  have  heard  men  make  speeches  in  my  time,  and  I  have  had  to  pay  very 
close  attention  to  know  what  they  were  driving  at.  They  would  take  an 
hour  to  prove  a  position.  If  you  judged  them  in  half  an  hour  you  would  not 
get  at  all  the  position  they  were  trying  to  prove.  It  is  often  the  case  when 
listening  to  public  speakers  that  I  have  noticed  they  will  speak  along  and 
along,  and  then  in  the  last  few  minutes  of  the  speech  they  will  show  exactly 
what  they  mean.  There  will  be  some  language  used  there  that  modifies  your 
conception  of  their  meaning,  and  opens  it  all  up,  and  you  see  the  beauty  of 
the  whole  argument.  Maybe  you  would  not  have  seen  it  if  it  hadn’t  been  for 
that  unlocking  cf  the  secret. 

I  am  charged  with  having  spoken  of  rebellion.  But  before  I  speak  of 
that,  I  will  refer  again  to  some  of  the  words  which  have  been  introduced 
here.  I  am  charged  with  having  said  “stab  the  law.”  No  one  claims  but  that 
it  was  in  connection  with  my  conception  of  the  meaning  of  Foran’s  speech, 
and  the  word  “stab”  is  not  necessarily  a  threat  of  violence  upon  any  person. 
Here  at  your  primary  elections  you  frequently  hear  the  adherents  of  different 
candidates  state  before  the  primaries  are  called  that  they  will  “knife”  so  and 
so.  Do  they  mean  that  they  are  going  to  kill  him,  stab  him,  take  his  life  away 
from  him?  They  are  forcible  expressions — very  emphatic  expressions.  They 
are  verbs  which  are  used  in  different  ways  to  carry  conviction  and  per¬ 
haps  make  the  language  more  startling  to  the  audience  in  order  that  they 
may  pay  attention.  I  remember  now  when  the  dispute  was  going  on  in  Eng¬ 
land  as  to  the  extension  of  the  franchise  in  1866  and  1867,  when  such  large 
meetings  were  called  all  through  England  to  dispute  the  assertion  of  Disraeli, 
afterward  Lord  Beaconsfield,  that  the  working  classes  did  not  want  the  fran¬ 
chise,  that  John  Bright  replied  to  the  letter  of  Beaconsfield,  saying  that  there 
might  be  some  excuse  for  Beaconsfield  if  he  had  said  this  in  the  heat  of  a 
speech,  but  having  sat  down  and  coolly  written  it  out,  there  was  no  excuse 
for  it,  showing  that  such  a  parliamentarian  as  John  Bright  is,  with  perhaps 
no  superior  in  his  time,  thought  there  was  an  excuse  for  men  dropping  into 
language  in  the  heat  of  speeches  which  afterward  they  might  have  thought  it 
would  have  been  better  not  to  have  used,  as  their  speech  might  have  looked 
better  without  it.  I  say  this  language  does  not  necessarily  mean  an  incite¬ 
ment  to  violence.  I  have  used  the  word  “rebellion.”  Now,  you  know  the 
word  “rebellion”  is  not  necessarily  an  incitement  to  violence.  And  if  it 
were,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  an  incident  which  occurred  in  the  House 
of  Commons  a  hundred  years  ago.  When  the  ill-starred  attempt  was  made 
under  Montgomery  to  capture  Quebec  and  he  lost  his  life,  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  generous  as  he  was,  brought  up  the  question  of  the  death 
of  Montgomery,  whom  many  there  had  known.  He  spoke  of  him  as  a  gal¬ 
lant,  brave,  generous,  able  and  amiable  gentleman.  Another  member  said  hq 
was  a  gallant,  brave,  generous  and  an  amiable  rebel.  Lord  North  rose  in  his 
majesty  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  said :  “I  am  far  from  con¬ 
ceding  that  it  is  a  disreputable  term  to  be  called  a  rebel.  The  very  principles 
and  the  privileges  which  we  in  constitutional  England  enjoy  on  this  floor  to- 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


57 


day  were  acquired  by  rebellion.”  That  language  could  be  used  on  the  floor  of 
the  House  of  Commons  a  hundred  years  ago,  and  it  was  not  thought  to  be  aq 
incitement  to  violence. 

I  return  once  more  to  call  your  attention  to  the  coal  monopoly.  I  believe 
I  called  your  attention  to  it  before,  but  did  not  finish.  It  has  raised  the  price 
of  coal  by  restricting  the  output.  It  has  deprived  men  of  their  labor.  The 
coal  monopoly  wants  money  for  its  coal.  The  miners  want  coal  to  burn. 
They  must  pay  money  for  the  coal.  It  turns  its  miners  away  from  the  mines 
and  restricts  the  output,  and  then  it  raises  the  price  of  coal.  Of  course,  it 
does  not  need  a  very  great  logician  to  know  that  when  a  man  is  turned  out 
of  employment  he  cannot  pay  more  for  his  coal  than  he  could  before. 
Looked  at  in  this  way,  this  is  the  logic  of  the  coal  monopoly  and  the  injus- 
tive  it  has  done  to  the  public.  A  Chicago — I  will  not  mention  the  paper — a 
prominent  Chicago  paper  advises  the  “throttling  of  the  coal  monopoly.” 
Henry  George,  in  his  work  on  protection,  advises  the  throttling  of  protection. 
He  does  not  mean  to  say  that  he  wants  to  throttle  Judge  Kelley  or  James  G. 
Blaine.  I  also  said  the  law  turns  large  numbers  out  on  the  wayside.  Does 
anybody  deny  it?  If  it  is  true  that  the  law  does  not  make  laws  in  the  inter¬ 
est  of  the  working  classes,  but  makes  laws — and  it  must  necessarily  make 
them  in  the  interests  of  the  other  class  if  it  does  not  for  them — then  it  does 
turn  men  out  upon  the  wayside !  I  have  reference  to  the  introduction  of 
machinery — twenty  out  of  twenty-five  turned  out  of  employment.  Are  they 
not  turned  out  upon  the  wayside?  Any  question  about  it?  If  they  were 
laws  that  did  not  turn  men  out  upon  the  wayside,  and  I  knew  that  they  did 
not,  I  would  not  tell  anybody  that  they  did. 

Thomas  Cooper,  a  chartist  in  England,  was  once  visited  in  his  old  age  by 
a  friend  of  his.  A  little  girl  came  up  to  him  with  a  book  in  her  hand 
with  pictures  in  it,  opened  the  front  of  it  and  showed  him  the  fly  leaf,  and 
she  said,  “Mr.  Cooper,  write  something  for  me.”  And  Mr.  Cooper  wrote : 

“Love  truth,  my  child,  love  truth; 

It  will  gladden  thy  morn  of  youth, 

And  in  the  noon  of  life. 

Though  it  cost  thee  pain  and  strife 
To  keep  the  truth  in  its  brightness, 

Still  cleave  to  thy  uprightness.” 

If  I  am  to  be  convicted — hanged  for  telling  the  truth — the  little  child  that 
kneels  by  its  mother’s  side  on  the  West  Side  today,  and  tells  its  mother  that 
she  wants  her  papa  to  come  home,  and  to  whom  I  had  intended,  as  soon  as 
its  prattling  tongue  should  commence  to  talk,  to  teach  that  beautiful  senti¬ 
ment — then  the  child  had  better  never  be  taught  to  read  ;  had  better  never  be 
taught  that  sentiment — to  love  truth.  If  we  are  to  be  convicted  of  murder 
because  we  dare  to  tell  what  we  think  is  the  truth,  then  it  would  be  better 
that  every  one  of  your  school  houses  were  reduced  to  the  ground  and  not 
one  stone  left  upon  another.  If  you  teach  your  children  to  read,  they  will 
acquire  curiosity  from  what  they  read.  They  will  think,  and  they  will  search 
for  the  meaning  of  this  and  that.  They  will  arrive  at  conclusions.  And  then, 
if  they  love  the  truth,  they  must  tell  to  each  other  what  is  truth  or  what 
they  think  is  the  truth.  That  is  the  sum  of  my  offending.  It  turns  them  out 
upon  the  wayside  when  it  is  used  as  it  is. 

Mr.  Powderly,  in  his  official  address  to  a  large  assembly  of  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  labor  at  Richmond,  Va.,  said  the  other  day  that  Anarchy  was 
the  legitimate  product  of  monopoly.  I  have  said  you  must  abolish  the  pri¬ 
vate  property  system.  Mr.  English  said  that  I  said  “it  had  no  mercy;  so 
ought  you.”  Probably  if  I  said  “it  had  no  mercy,”  I  did  not  say  the  latter 
part  of  the  sentence  in  that  way.  I  probably  said,  “So  you  ought  not  to  have 
any  mercy.”  Is  it  doubted  by  anybody  that  the  system  has  no  mercy?  Does 
it  not  pursue  its  natural  course  irrespective  of  whom  it  hurts  or  upon  whom 
it  confers  benefits?  The  private  property  system,  then,  in  my  opinion,  being 


58 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


a  system  that  only  subserves  the  interests  of  a  few,  and  can  only  subserve  the 
interests  of  a  few,  has  no  mercy.  It  cannot  stop  for  the  consideration  of 
such  a  sentiment.  Naturally  it  cannot.  So  you  ought  not  to  have  mercy 
on  the  private  property  system,  because  it  is  well  known  that  there  are  many 
people  in  the  community  with  prejudices  in  their  minds.  They  have  grown 
up  under  certain  social  regulations,  and  they  believe  that  these  social  regu¬ 
lations  are  right,  just  as  Mr.  Grinnell  believes  that  everything  in  America  is 
right,  because  he  happened  to  be  born  here.  And  they  have  such  a  prejudice 
against  any  one  who  attacks  those  systems.  Now,  I  say  they  ought  not  to 
have  any  mercy  upon  a  system  that  does  not  maintain  their  interests.  They 
ought  not  to  have  that  respect  for  them  that  would  interfere  with  their 
abolishing  them.  And  that  is  all  that  they  can  possibly  mean  by  any  kind 
of  gymnastics.  When  I  say  it  does  turn  them  out  upon  the  wayside;  when 
I  know — and  Captain  Schaack  knows  how  many  men  there  were  last  winter, 
and  the  winter  before  that,  who  came  to  him  and  asked  him  if  he  would 
please  allow  them  to  sleep  on  the  station  floor,  to  keep  them  from  the  in¬ 
clemency  of  the  weather — I  say  it  has  no  mercy.  And  why  should  such  men 
have  mercy  upon  it  as  to  keep  it  in  existence?  Why  should  they  not  destroy 
it  as  long  as  it  is  destroying  them? 

Your  honor,  after  the  Haymarket  meeting,  after  I  had  escaped  from  the 
showers  of  bullets  with  a  slight  wound,  and  after  I  had  been  around,  as  I  told 
you  on  the  witness  stand,  trying  to  find  my  comrades  who  had  been  at  the 
meeting,  to  find  out  whether  they  were  alive  or  not,  I  went  home.  The  ex¬ 
plosion  of  the  bomb  was  as  much  a  surprise  to  me  as  it  was  to  any  police¬ 
man.  You  can  judge  how  I  felt  at  that  time,  not  knowing  what  damage  had 
been  done,  the  suddenness  of  such  a  calamity  coming  down  upon  one,  and 
knowing,  as  I  must  have,  that  I  should  be  held  in  some  respect,  at  least, 
responsible.  After  getting  my  wound  dressed  I  went  home.  It  was  late.  My 
mind  was  racked  with  the  thought  of  what  would  occur  on  the  morrow,  and 
I  finally  resolved,  as  any  innocent  man  would  have  done,  if  they  wanted  me 
to  explain  my  connection  with  this  catastrophe,  let  them  come  and  ask  me 
to  do  so.  Mr.  Slayton  has  testified  here  that,  when  he  came  to  my  house,  I 
was  sitting  in  my  room. 

I  didn’t  attempt  to  run  away.  I  had  been  out  walking  around  the  street 
that  morning,  and  there  was  plenty  of  opportunity  for  me  to  have  been  hun¬ 
dreds  of  miles  away.  When  he  came  there  I  opened  the  door  to  him.  He 
said  he  wanted  me.  I  know  him  by  sight  and  I  knew  what  was  his  occupa¬ 
tion.  I  said :  “All  right,  I  will  go  with  you.”  I  have  said  here  that  I 
thought,  when  the  representatives  of  the  State  had  inquired  by  means  of 
their  policemen  as  to  my  connection  with  it,  that  I  should  have  been  released. 
And  I  say  now,  in  view  of  all  the  authorities  that  have  been  read  on  the  law 
and  regarding  accessories,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  evidence  that  has 
been  introduced  to  connect  me  with  that  affair.  One  of  the  Chicago  papers, 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  State’s  attorney’s  case,  said  that  they  might  have 
proven  more  about  these  men,  about  where  they  were  and  what  they  were 
doing  on  the  2d  and  3d  of  May.  When  I  was  told  that  Captain  Schaack 
had  got  confessions  out  of  certain  persons  connected  with  this  affair,  I  said : 
“Let  them  confess  all  they  like.  As  long  as  they  will  tell  only  the  truth,  I 
care  nothing  for  their  confessions.”  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  no  knowl¬ 
edge  of  it,  and  the  gentlemen  there  know  it. 

I  am  going  to  speak  about  something  that  has  not  come  out  in  the  testi¬ 
mony.  I  have  a  right  to  tell  it  now.  I  do  not  do  it  with  any  vindictive 
feeling.  I  do  not  do  it  to  hurt  anybody,  but  in  the  hope  that,  in  the  last  few 
days  that  I  have  to  live,  I  may  do  some  good  by  telling  it,  and  I  hope  what 
I  am  going  to  state  will  have  the  tendency  to  do  some  good.  I  was  arrested 
and  brought  to  the  Central  Station.  I  had  always  understood  that  a  man 
who  was  arrested  on. suspicion  of  having  committed  a  crime  was  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  innocent  until  he  was  proven  guilty.  I  have  received  a  great  deal 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


59 


more  consideration  since  I  have  been  proven  guilty  in  this  court  than  before 
I  was  so  proven — in  the  opinion  of  the  jurors.  I  was  taken  into  the  corridor 
of  the  court  house.  Lieutenant  Shea  was  sitting  on  the  table  with  about 
twenty-five  detectives  around  him.  Mr.  Slayton  said,  “This  is  Fielden.” 
Lieutenant  Shea  said,  “You -  Dutchman,  before  you  came  to  this  coun¬ 

try  people  were  getting  good  wages.”  I  said,  “Mr.  Shea,  I  am  not  a  Dutch¬ 
man.”  He  said,  “You  are - worse,  you - .”  That  is  the 

language  of  the  officers  of  the  law.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  they  are 
Democratic  or  Republican  officers,  I  speak  of  them  as  a  whole.  And  this  is 
a  prominent  official  in  the  police  department  of  the  city  of  Chicago.  I  re¬ 
plied  somewhat  sharply,  using  no  epithets.  It  certainly  occurred  to  me  when 
I  looked  around  at  those  policemen,  that  perhaps  this  man,  who  will  treat  a 
helpless  prisoner  in  this  way,  is  trying  to  provoke  me.  Perhaps  he  will  shoot 
me.  I  think  it  was  a  logical  conclusion  to  draw.  A  man  who  is  mean  enough 
and  contemptible  enough  to  use  that  language  to  a  helpless  prisoner,  would 
go  further.  And  I  said  to  myself,  “If  he  does,  who  is  there  here  to  testify 
that  he  murdered  me?  Are  there  not  twenty-five  professional  liars  here  to 
testify  that  I  tried  to  murder  him?”  These  were  the  thoughts  that  went 
through  my  mind,  and  I  said  no  more.  I  said,  “You  have  me  here  now,  you 
can  do  as  you  like  with  me.”  I  will  not  repeat  that  again  in  your  honor’s 
presence  and  in  the  presence  of  ladies.  I  am  sorry  that  I  repeated  it  now. 
It  came  out  unthinkingly,  and  it  is  a  very  unpleasant  word  to  use  anywhere, 
and  ought  not  to  be  used  by  anybody.  I  was  met  by  the  worthy  chief  before 
I  got  down  into  the  cellar,  Mr.  Ebersold.  He  was  informed  that  I  was 
wounded  and  told  me  to  take  off  the  bandage  and  show  him.  I  did  so.  He 

said :  “ - your  soul,  it  ought  to  have  gone  in  here”  (pointing  to  his 

head  between  the  eyes).  This  is  the  chief.  And  when  I  was  about  to  be 
brought  here,  and  had  begged  and  begged  for  some  one  to  dress  my  wound 
(because  the  doctor  who  dressed  it  the  night  before  had  told  me  that  it  must 
be  dressed  in  the  afternoon  following),  I  was  told  by  a  detective  whose  name 
I  don’t  know,  or  an  official,  that  they  ought  to  put  strychnine  into  it.  Your 
honor  may  not  believe  this.  I  know  that  it  is  the  custom  of  all  classes  of 
criminals  who  are  charged  with  crime  to  turn  around  and  charge  indis¬ 
criminately  everything  they  can  possibly  imagine  against  those  who  arrest 
them.  I  can  only  make  the  statement.  Your  honor  may  not  believe  me.  Mr. 
Shea  and  Mr.  Ebersold  may  come  here  and  say  they  did  not  say  it.  You 
may  believe  them  in  preference  to  me.  But  I  will  tell  you  one  thing,  there 
is  no  man  who  knows  Samuel  Fielden  but  will  believe  him. 

Your  honor,  we  are  charged  with  being  opposed  to  the  law.  I  believe 
your  honor  knows  a  great  deal  better  than  I  do  what  the  law  is.  It  would 
take  a  man  a  great  number  of  years  to  find  out  what  it  is.  I  have  seen 
wagon  loads  of  books  brought  into  this  court  to  find  out  what  the  law  is. 
It  is  generally  thought  and  asserted,  and  I  believe  it  is  a  fundamental  princi¬ 
ple  of  the  law,  that  no  man  is  to  be  exempted  from  punishment  for  a  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  law  because  of  his  ignorance  of  it.  Now,  working  at  my  occupa¬ 
tion  as  teamster  fourteen  hours  a  day,  I  don’t  think  that  I  could  have  read 
all  of  those  authorities  that  have  been  quoted  here  to  find  out  what  the  law 
is,  in  ten  lifetimes.  But  we  are  required  to  answer  to  the  charge  of  being 
lawless  individuals  who  violated  the  law,  who  advised  the  abolition  of  the 
law  and  all  government.  Your  honor  has  put  it  “The  government,”  as  though 
we  were  conspirators  against  this  particular  government.  The  very  fact  that 
hundreds  of  authorities  can  be  quoted  on  both  sides  and  on  a  dozen  sides  of 
any  particular  question,  is  because  of  the  impossibility  of  any  one  man  pre¬ 
scribing  laws  to  fit  any  other  man  or  number  of  men. 

I  believe  there  is  a  law,  and  I  don’t  know  that  there  is  any  authority 
which  can  be  quoted  against  it,  that  before  a  man  can  go  into  a  house  of  a 
citizen,  he  must  have  the  authority  of  the  law,  and  show  that  he  is  an  officer 
of  the  law  and  in  pursuit  of  a  lawful  purpose.  If  any  man  calling  himself 


60 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


a  policeman  may  go  and  search  a  house  and  say,  “I  am  an  officer  of  the  law. 
I  want  to  search  your  house,”  the  law  requires,  if  I  understand  it,  that  before 
any  one  can  search  a  house  he  shall  have  a  search  warrant.  In  every  in¬ 
stance  that  any  house  has  been  searched  in  the  prosecution  of  this  case,  there 
has  been  no  search  warrant  presented.  Now,  if  men  can  violate  the  law  who 
are  its  sworn  supporters,  and  who  get  their  living  by  the  pursuit  of  the  law, 
do  you  think  it  naturally  tends  to  produce  respect  for  the  law  on  the  part  of 
those  on  whom  they  prey,  when  they  violate  the  law?  If  you  say  that  very 
often  justice  could  not  under  circumstances  and  emergencies  be  carried  out 
if  every  technicality  of  the  law  were  obeyed,  does  it  not  show  the  impos¬ 
sibility  then  of  applying  the  law  justly  and  rightly  to  every  case?  Now,  I 
think  that  it  is  the  natural  tendency  to  beget  disrespect  for  the  law  when 
those  who  are  its  representatives  show  so  little  respect  for  it.  And  I  wish 
to  say  that  I  was  arrested  without  a  warrant.  Another  violation  of  law;  I 
was  taken  out  upon  the  sidewalk,  while  three  men  went  through  my  house, 
turned  it  upside  down,  as  the  leader  has  admitted  here,  although  they  found 
nothing  that  indicated  that  I  was  a  dangerous  character — not  even  an  empty 
cartridge  of  a  revolver.  They  not  only  did  this,  but  my  wife  tells  me  that 
about  ten  men  went  back  there  again,  and,  without  presenting  any  search 
warrant,  went  through  the  house — her  husband  and  protector  in  jail.  Your 
honor,  I  merely  state  these  things  to  show  that  men  hired  by  the  law  to  de¬ 
fend  it  are  the  very  ones  who  throw  discredit  upon  it.  Any  one  could  have 
gone  there  at  any  time,  searched  that  house,  and  robbed  it  of  everything 
there  was  in  it,  and  have  just  as  much  justification  in  going  in  as  any  of 
these  men  had.  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  for  a  little  while — it  is  going; 
back  to  the  question  I  spoke  of  before,  but  I  think  it  is  necessary  in  my  own 
defense — one  of  this  class  of  persons  who  have  been  in  the  habit  of  going 
into  houses  without  authority  of  law,  testified  at  the  coroner’s  inquest,  and 
he  testified  upon  this  case  in  court  that  he  had  said  in  the  coroner’s  jury 
room  that  he  had  heard  me  say,  “Here  come  the  bloodhounds ;  you  do  your 
duty  and  I  will  do  mine.”  I  would  submit  to  your  honor  that  it  would  be  a 
very  good  thing  for  you  to  ask  one  of  the  counsel  on  either  side  of  this  case 
to  allow  you  to  look  at  the  report  of  the  coroner’s  jury,  and  see  whether  that 
man  lied  here  or  not.  I  have  no  fear  of  the  result  of  that  investigation. 

An  interview  has  been  held  with  Mr.  Grinnell,  and  published  in  one  of 
the  papers  of  this  city  since  his  return  from  his  vacation,  in  which  Mr. 
Grinnell  is  reported  to  have  said — but  perhaps  the  reporter  lied ;  I  should  not 
wonder  if  he  had,  they  have  done  it  before  and  it  would  not  be  surprising — 
“Why,  these  men  have  no  principles.  They  did  not  defend  themselves  with 
their  principles.”  I  have  said  before  that  we  were  not  here  to  defend  our 
principles.  We  were  here  to  respond  to  the  charge  of  murder.  If  we  were 
guilty  of  murder  we  were  guilty  whether  we  had  principles  or  not.  After  we 
got  all  our  testimony  in  we  were  then  told  that  we  were  being  tried  because 
we  had  no  principles.  What  are  the  duties  of  a  prosecuting  attorney?  The 
lawyers  can  give  technical  definitions,  I  suppose,  but  the  general  idea  of  the 
duties  of  a  prosecuting  attorney  is — and  I  do  not  call  in  question  the  fact 
that  they  are  necessary  under  our  present  social  regulations — to  see  to  it 
that  no  guilty  man  shall  escape,  if  he  can  possibly  prevent  it.  It  is  also  the 
duty  of  the  prosecuting  attorney,  as  much  as  it  is  of  the  defendant’s  attorney, 
to  see  to  it  that  no  innocent  man  should  suffer  for  any  crime.  Lawyers 
have  a  peculiar  code  of  morals.  Their  success  in  their  particular  avocation 
depends  upon  their  gaining  suits.  And  I  am  afraid  there  are  lawyers  to  be 
found  who  care  little  as  to  whether  their  suit  is  right  or  in  the  interest  of 
justice  and  truth,  so  long  as  they  can  gain  their  case  and  make  a  reputation 
for  themselves.  Now,  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  prosecuting  attorney  to  take 
that  view  of  his  position.  And  when  I  call  upon  your  honor  to  go  back  and 
review  the  proceedings  of  the  coroner’s  inquest,  I  also  ask  Mr.  Grinnell  to 
review  them.  I  ask  him  to  see  whether  any  man  testified  at  the  coroner’s 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


61 


inquest,  with  the  events  of  the  4th  of  May  fresh  in  his  mind,  that  Fielden 
said  on  that  night,  “Here  come  the  bloodhounds ;  you  do  your  duty  and  I 
will  do  mine.”  I  will  state  further  that  Coroner  Hertz  came  to  me  shortly 
after  my  incarceration  in  this  building,  and  asked  me  to  sign  a  synopsis 
which  he  had  of  the  testimony  given  in  the  coroner’s  room,  in  which  synop¬ 
sis  there  was  not  one  word  of  the  kind  attributed  to  me  in  this  trial. 

We  claim  that  the  foulest  criminal  that  could  have  been  picked  up  in 
the  slums  of  any  city  in  Christendom,  or  outside  of  it,  would  never  have  been 
convicted  on  such  testimony  as  has  been  brought  in  here  if  he  had  not  been 
a  dangerous  man  in  the  opinion  of  the  privileged  classes.  We  claim  that  we 
are  convicted,  not  because  we  have  committed  murder.  We  are  convicted 
because  we  were  very  energetic  in  advocacy  of  the  rights  of  labor.  I  call 
your  attention  to  a  very  significant  fact — that  on  this  day,  at  this  time  when 
the  sentence  of  death  is  going  to  be  passed  on  us,  the  Stock  Yards  employers 
have  notified  their  employees  that  they  will  be  required  to  work  ten  hours 
next  Monday  or  they  will  shut  down.  I  think  it  is  a  logical  conclusion  to 
draw  that  these  men  think  they  have  got  a  dangerous  element  out  of  the  way 
now  and  they  can  return  again  to  the  ten-hour  system.  I  know  that  I  had  con¬ 
siderable  to  do  with  the  eight-hour  question,  although  I  only  spoke  once  in 
that  neighborhood,  every  man  being  a  stranger  to  me — but  I  went  down 
there  in  March  previous  and  made  an  eight-hour  speech  and  formed  the 
nucleus  of  an  eight-hour  organization  there,  and  the  Stock  Yards  succeeded 
in  starting  the  eight-hour  system,  though  they  have  not  been  able  to  keep  it 
up  in  its  entirely.  We  claim  we  have  done  much. 

Mr.  Neebe  has  told  you  of  the  advantages  that  have  been  gained  by 
classes  of  workingmen  in  this  city  through  his  organization  of  Trades  Unions 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  a  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor.  If  we  have 
succeeded  to  the  extent  that  he  has  told  you,  our  lives  will  not  have  been 
spent  in  vain. 

And  whatever  may  be  our  fate — and  there  seems  to  be  but  one  conclusion 
on  that  question — we  feel  satisfied  that  we  have  not  lived  in  this  world  for 
nothing;  that  we  have  done  some  good  to  our  fellowmen,  and  done  what  we 
believe  to  be  in  the  interest  of  humanity  and  for  the  furtherance  of  justice. 
It  is  a  satisfaction  to  know  that.  I  repeat  the  language,  as  near  as  I  can 
remember  it,  of  Lady  Cavendish,  after  the  murder  of  her  husband,  in  Phoenix 
Park.  She  said:  “If  the  death  of  my  darling  has  tended  in  any  way  to 
bring  about  a  better  understanding  and  a  better  condition  of  things  between 
these  two  elements,  I  willingly  give  him  up.”  If  my  life  is  to  be  taken  for 
advocating  the  principles  of  Socialism  and  Anarchy,  as  I  have  understood 
them  and  honestly  believe  them  in  the  interest  of  humanity,  I  say  to  you 
that  I  gladly  give  it  up ;  and  the  price  is  very  small  for  the  result  that  is 
gained. 

Your  honor,  with  due  respect  to  your  years,  I  wfish  to  say  this :  That  it 
is  quite  possible  you  cannot  understand,  having  lived  in  a  different  atmos¬ 
phere  from  what  we  have  lived  in,  how  men  can  hold  such  ridiculous  ideas. 
I  have  no  doubt  you  felt  that  way.  Yet  it  is  well  known  that  persons  who 
have  lived  to  a  ripe  old  age  seldom  change  their  opinions.  I  impute  no  wrong 
motive  in  that.  It  is  a  natural  result.  But  we  do  claim  that  our  principles 
will  bear  discussion,  investigation  and  criticism.  We  claim  that  so  far  as  we 
have  been  able  to  find  out  in  trying  to  find  a  cure  for  the  ills  of  society  we 
have  not  found  out  anything  that  has  seemed  to  fit  the  particular  disease 
which  society,  in  our  opinion,  is  afflicted  with  today  better  than  the  principles 
of  Socialism,  and,  your  honor,  Socialism,  when  it  is  as  thoroughly  under¬ 
stood  in  this  community  and  in  the  world  as  it  is  by  us,  I  believe  that  the 
world,  which  is  generally  honest,  prejudiced  though  it  may  be,  will  not  be 
slow  to  adopt  its  principles.  And  it  will  be  a  good  time,  a  grand  day  for  the 
world;  it  will  be  a  grand  day  for  humanity;  it  will  never  have  taken  a  step 
so  far  onward  towards  perfection,  if  it  can  ever  reach  that  goal,  as  it  will 


62 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


when  it  adopts  the  principles  of  Socialism.  They  are  principles  that 
ignore  no  man.  They  are  the  principles  that  consider  the  interest  of  every 
one.  They  are  the  principles  which  will  do  away  with  wrong  and  injustice 
and  suffering  will  be  reduced  at  least  to  a  minimum  under  such  an  organ¬ 
ization  of  society.  As  compared  to  the  present  struggle  for  existence,  which 
is  degrading  society  and  making  men,  as  I  have  said  in  the  Haymarket 
speech,  merely  things  and  animals,  Socialism  will  give  them  opportunities  of 
developing  the  possibilities  of  their  nature.  But  under  our  present  existing 
economic  relations,  there  can  be  nothing.  And,  your  honor,  it  is  only,  in  my 
opinion,  a  short  time  before  this  system  will  have  outlived  itself,  so  as  to 
compel  the  adoption  of  the  Socialistic  system.  The  existence  of  the  vast 
army  of  unemployed  men ;  the  existence  of  crime  which  is  becoming  an 
almost  intolerable  burden  upon  the  different  communities  in  this  country  and 
in  Europe  to  keep  in  check,  is  showing  us  that  there  is  something  radically 
wrong.  These  conditions  will  force  us  to  ask  what  that  wrong  is,  and  force 
us  to  adopt  some  antidote  for  the  evil. 

I  have  read  somewhere  of  a  historical  character  who  in  ancient  times  is 
reported  to  have  killed  his  comrade.  Spartacus  was  a  gladiator  who  lived 
to  pander  to  the  amusement  of  the  Roman  nobles  of  old.  He  is  reported  as 
having  on  one  occasion  spoken  to  his  fellow  slaves  in  some  such  words  as 
these — or,  rather,  these  are  his  sentiments.  In  speaking  of  his  home,  before 
he  became  a  captive,  he  tells  them  of  the  pleasures  of  his  youth;  he  tells 
them,  as  they  listen  to  the  Numidian  lion’s  roar,  that  tomorrow  it  will  feast 
and  satisfy  its  hunger  upon  them.  “Yesterday  I  met  in  the  arena  a  gladiator, 
and  I  killed  him.  I  thought  of  the  time  when  I  was  a  child  on  the  hills  of 
Thrace,  of  a  little  boy  that  belonged  to  a  neighbor,  and  who  shared  with  me 
my  humble  meal  as  we  tended  our  separate  flocks  on  the  hillsides,  and  when 
I  lifted  the  cowl  of  the  gladiator  that  I  had  killed,  I  found  that  it  was  the 
comrade  of  my  youth.  Why  should  it  be  that  we  should  struggle?  Why 

should  it  be  that  we  should  fight?  Why  should  it  be  that  we  should  kill  each 

other  for  the  amusement  of  the  Roman  nobles?”  And  I  say  now,  in  an  era 
in  which  there  is  an  intense  struggle  for  existence  among  the  class  that  has 
no  money  or  property,  that  it  is  a  struggle  for  the  amusement  of  the  prop¬ 
erty  nobles.  The  children  that  play  together  in  the  streets  of  Chicago  and  the 
villages  that  dot  this  continent  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  will  grow  up 
and  engage  in  a  life  and  death  struggle  for  existence,  for  the  amusement  and 
for  the  benefit  of  nobody  but  their  masters,  the  American  nobles.  I  say,  my 
friends,  as  you  draw  the  line  tighter  and  tighter,  the  conflicts  that  are  going 
on  and  will  go  on  between  these  men,  will  array  them  against  their  masters. 
If  I  can  say  anything  in  the  interests  of  humanity,  in  the  interests  of  liberty, 

equality,  and  fraternity,  I  would  say  it  now.  Take  heed,  take  heed !  The 

time,  my  friends,  is  not  far  off.  The  swift  process  of  reduction  of  the  masses 
into  a  condition  of  depravity  and  degradation,  as  is  evinced  by  the  number 
of  men  out  of  employment,  shows  us  clearly  where  we  are  going.  We  cannot 
deny  it.  No  thinking  man,  no  reasoning  man,  no  friend  of  his  kind,  can 
ignore  the  fact  that  we  are  going  rapidly  on  to  a  precipice.  If  I  call  a  halt,  I 
consider  that  in  the  interest  of  humanity.  I  make  no  threats.  I  have  never 
made  any  threats.  I  have  merely  spoken  and  told  the  people  what  was  the 
natural  result  of  present  existing  conditions.  I  tell  them  now  that  I  do  not 
advise  any  man  to  commit  any  act  which  would  render  himself  liable  to  the 
law  or  to  punishment ;  but  I  say  to  those  who  have  the  means  of  existence  in 
their  possession,  that  there  may  come  a  time  when  the  people  will  no  longer 
be  crowded  together,  when  the  rats,  as  Mr.  Grinnell  has  said,  will  come  out 
of  their  holes.  I  would  ask  you  to  read  Victor  Hugo,  read  in  that  grand 
work,  “The  Hunchback  of  Notre  Dame,”  the  description  of  the  vermin  that 
crawled  out  of  the  Latin  quarter.  Unpleasant  as  these  are,  they  are  human 
beings.  Look  at  the  result  of  the  degradation  that  the  masses  had  been 
brought  to,  and  at  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution  of  1789.  They  knew 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


63 


nothing.  They  only  knew  the  blind  rage  of  an  enraged  tiger  to  kill  some¬ 
thing — to  destroy  something,  when  their  condition  had  become  so  desperate 
that  life  was  no  longer  desirable  and  death  had  no  terrors.  It  is  a  lesson 
of  history.  No  man  ever  willfully  throws  his  life  away. 

It  is  not  probable  that  there  will  be  any  revolt  in  America,  that  there 
will  be  any  rebellion  in  any  country  under  the  sun,  until  the  time  has  come 
when  the  people  can  no  longer  live.  They  will  never  do  it  until  then.  It  is 
for  society  to  think;  it  is  for  them  to  compare.  It  will  not  do  for  a  man  to 
look  around  at  his  little  home,  his  own  hearthstone,  and  imagine  how  com¬ 
fortable  he  is,  and  think  because  of  that,  that  everything  is  lovely  and  every¬ 
thing  is  safe.  It  is  not.  Outside  are  the  men  who  are  suffering  men  with 
appetites;  men  with  passions;  men  with  desires;  men  with  sentiments  as 
fine,  perhaps,  some  of  them,  as  those  of  some  of  the  most  intelligent  portions 
of  the  community;  men  being  driven  to  the  wall.  They  will  continue  to  be 
unless  the  system  is  changed.  When  I  have  told  you,  or  indicated,  rather,  how 
the  people’s  means  of  existence  have  gradually  been  concentrated  into  the 
hands  of  the  smaller  quantity  and  number  of  the  community,  it  is  an  indi¬ 
cation  that  points  unerringly  to  a  danger.  I  wish  society  would  avert  this. 
I  have  said  upon  the  witness  stand  that  it  was  not  pleasant  for  me  to  con¬ 
template  anything  of  the  kind.  It  is  not  a  pleasant  thing,  but  in  the  inter¬ 
est  of  peace,  as  I  told  these  people. 

Your  honor,  there  is  one  thing  I  wish  to  say  about  my  own  particular 
case,  and  then  I  have  done.  Dynamite  has  been  spoken  of  here,  and  it  has 
been  charged  by  Mr.  Ingham  that  all  of  us  knew  that  violence  was  to  be 
used  at  the  Haymarket.  If  he  didn’t  say  as  much,  it  was  indicated  as  much 
in  that  assertion  that  we  were  all  equally  guilty.  That  may  be  so.  I  don’t 
know  the  extent  to  which  any  of  the  others  are  guilty.  Fischer,  Lingg,  and 
Engel  are  men  that  I  have  not  associated  with  for  a  year.  I  knew  Fischer ; 
I  didn’t  know  Lingg.  Mr.  Engel  I  have  seen,  but  quite  a  while  before  the 
Haymarket  affair,  and  I  know  at  one  time  he  did  not  belong  to  our  organi¬ 
zation — had  left  it,  and  so  had  Fischer,  and  I  didn’t  know  they  belonged  to 
it.  I  could  not  have  been  then  conspiring  with  them  to  do  anything  in  the 
Haymarket  square  on  the  fourth  of  May.  I  hadn’t  seen  these  other  gentle¬ 
men  since  the  Sunday  previous.  I  believe  I  didn’t  see  Mr.  Parsons  on  that 
Sunday  at  all  and  had  not  seen  him  for  a  week  before  that.  I  don’t  know 
what  the  ingredients  of  dynamite  are.  I  had  never  seen,  before  I  came  into 
this  court  room,  a  dynamite  bomb.  I  have  never  seen  any  experiments  or 
taken  part  in  any  experiments  with  dynamite  in  any  shape  or  form.  And  I 
never  knew — and  I  only  know  now,  if  I  may  believe  the  testimony  of  the 
detectives  in  this  case — that  there  was  dynamite  kept  in  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung 
building.  I  say  these  things,  not  because  I  believe  that  I  shall  be  believed — 
because  I  know,  as  I  have  stated  before,  that  every  defendant,  almost,  as¬ 
serts  his  innocence,  and  it  is  about  all  that  he  can  do — and  it  undoubtedly 
has  been  the  case  that  many  a  man,  as  guilty  as  he  could  possibly  be,  has 
said  with  as  much  apparent  sincerity  as  I  say  it  today,  that  he  was  innocent, 
and  yet  was  guilty — but  I  wish  to  say  this,  that  if  the  State’s  attorney  or  the 
authorities  of  this  city  should  arrest  your  honor  tomorrow  for  any  crime 
they  choose  to  charge  you  with,  they  could  prove  you  guilty  if  they  wanted 
to.  That  is  an  advantage  that  they  have.  Whether  it  is  intentional — and  I 
am  not  going  to  charge  anything  of  the  kind  against  any  man — I  know  that 
intentional  falsehoods  have  been  stated  here,  I  will  charge  that  where  I  know 
it — I  will  not  injure  any  man’s  feelings;  I  will  not  charge  for  the  sake  of 
saving  my  life,  any  man  with  being  a  murderer,  until  I  know  him  to  be  that ; 
I  do  not  and  cannot  know,  having  been  confined  the  length  of  time  I  have, 
what  influences  may  have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  State’s  attorney, 
that  there  should  have  been  the  evidence  brought  in  here  against  me  which 
has  been,  and  which  I  know  to  be  false — therefore,  I  will  not  charge  that  it 
was  intentional  to  convict  me  on  his  part,  but  I  have  suggested  here  that  he 


64 


ADDRESS  OF  SAMUEL  FIELDEN 


can  find  out  many  things  if  he  will  look  up  certain  records  that  I  have  re¬ 
ferred  to  which  will  controvert  much  that  has  been  asserted  here  in  my 
particular  case. 

Your  honor,  I  have  worked  at  hard  labor  since  I  was  eight  years  of  age. 
I  went  into  a  cotton  factory  when.  I  was  eight  years  old,  and  I  have  worked 
continually  since,  and  there  has  never  been  a  time  in  my  history  that  I  could 
have  been  bought  or  paid  into  a  single  thing  by  any  man  for  any  purpose 
which  I  did  not  believe  to  be  true.  To  contradict  the  lie  that  was  published 
in  connection  with  the  bill  by  the  grand  jury  charging  us  with  murder,  I  wish 
to  say  that  I  have  never  received  one  cent  for  agitating.  When  I  have  gone 
out  of  the  city  I  have  had  my  expenses  paid.  But  often  when  I  have  gone 
into  communities,  when  I  would  have  to  depend  upon  those  communities  for 
paying  my  way,  I  have  often  come  back  to  this  city  money  out  of  my  pocket, 
which  I  had  earned  by  hard  labor,  and  I  had  to  pay  for  the  privilege  of  my 
agitation  out  of  the  little  money  E  might  have  in  my  possession. 

Today  as  the  beautiful  autumn  sun  kisses  with  balmy  breeze  the  cheek 
of  every  free  man,  I  stand  here  never  to  bathe  my  head  in  its  rays  again.  I 
have  loved  my  fellowmen  as  I  have  loved  myself.  I  have  hated  trickery, 
dishonest)',  and  injustice.  The  nineteenth  century  commits  the  crime  of  kill¬ 
ing  its  best  friend.  It  will  live  to  repent  of  it.  But,  as  I  have  said  before, 
if  it  will  do  any  good,  I  freely  give  myself  up.  I  trust  the  time  will  come 
when  there  will  be  a  better  understanding,  more  intelligence,  and,  above  the 
mountains  of  iniquity,  wrong  and  corruption,  I  hope  the  sun  of  righteous¬ 
ness  and  truth  and  justice  will  come  to  bathe  in  its  balmy  light  an  emanci¬ 
pated  world.  I  thank  your  honor  for  your  attention. 


cADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


FREEDOM 

Toil  and  pray!  The  world  cries  cold; 
Speed  thy  prayer,  for  time  is  gold. 
At  thy  door  Need’s  subtle  tread; 
Pray  in  haste!  for  time  is  bread. 


/ 


And  thou  plough’st  and  thou  hew’st, 

And  thou  rivet’st  and  sewest, 

And  thou  harvestest  in  vain; 

Speak!  O,  man;  what  is  thy  gain? 

Fly’st  the  shuttle  day  and  night, 

Heav’st  the  ores  of  earth  to  light, 

Fill’st  with  treasures  plenty’s  horn; 

Brim’st  it  o’er  with  wine  and  corn. 

But  who  hath  thy  meal  prepared, 

Festive  garments  with  thee  shared; 

And  where  is  thy  cheerful  hearth, 

Thy  good  shield  in  battle  dearth? 

Thy  creations  round  thee  see 
All  thy  work,  but  naught  for  thee! 

Yea,  of  all  the  chains  alone  thy  hand  forged, 
These  are  thine  own: 

Chains  that  round  the  body  cling, 

Chains  that  lame  the  spirit’s  wing, 

Chains  that  infants’  feet,  indeed, 

Clog!  O,  workman!  Lo!  Thy  meed. 

What  you  rear  and  bring  to  light, 

Profits  by  the  idle  wight, 

What  ye  weave  of  divers  hue, 

'Tis  a  curse — your  only  due. 

What  ye  build,  no  room  insures, 

Nor  a  sheltering  roof  to  yours, 

And  by  haughty  ones  are  trod — 

Ye,  whose  toil  their  feet  hath  shod. 


Human  bees!  Has  nature’s  thrift 
Given  thee  naught  but  honey’s  gift? 
See!  the  drones  are  on  the  wing. 

Have  you  lost  the  will  to  sting? 

Man  of  labor,  up,  arise! 

Know  the  might  that  in  thee  lies, 
Wheel  and  shaft  are  set  at  rest 
At  thy  powerful  arm’s  behest. 

Thine  oppressor’s  hand  recoils 
When  thou,  weary  of  thy  toil, 
Shun’st  thy  plough  thy  task  begun, 
When  thou  speak’st:  Enough  is  done! 

Break  this  two-fold  yoke  in  twain; 
Break  thy  want’s  enslaving  chain; 
Break  thy  slavery’s  want  and  dread;] 
Bread  is  freedom,  freedom  bread. 


66 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


That  poem  epitomizes  the  aspirations,  the  hope,  the  need,  of  the  work¬ 
ing  classes,  not  alone  of  America,  but  of  the  civilized  world. 

Your  honor:  if  there  is  one  distinguishing  characteristic  which  has  made 
itself  prominent  in  the  conduct  of  this  trial,  it  has  been  the  passion,  the  heat, 
and  the  anger,  the  violence  both  to  sentiment  and  to  person,  of  everything 
connected  with  this  case.  You  ask  me  why  sentence  of  death  should  not  be 
pronounced  upon  me,  or,  what  is  tantamount  to  the  same  thing,  you  ask  me 
why  you  should  give  me  a  new  trial  in  order  that  I  might  establish  my  inno¬ 
cence  and  the  ends  of  justice  be  subserved.  I  answer  you  and  say  that  this 
verdict  is  the  verdict  of  passion,  born  in  passion,  nurtured  in  passion,  and  is 
the  sum  total  of  the  organized  passion  of  the  city  of  Chicago.  For  this  rea¬ 
son  I  ask  your  suspension  of  the  sentence  and  the  granting  of  a  new  tjrial. 
This  is  one  among  the  many  reasons  which  I  hope  to  present  before  I  con¬ 
clude.  Now,  what  is  passion?  Passion  is  the  suspension  of  reason;  in  a  mob 
upon  the  streets,  in  the  broils  of  the  saloon,  in  the  quarrels  on  the  sidewalk, 
where  men  throw  aside  their  reason  and  resort  to  feelings  of  exasperation, 
we  have  passion.  There  is  a  suspension  of  the  elements  of  judgment,  of 
calmness,  of  discrimination  requisite  to  arrive  at  the  truth  and  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  justice.  1  hold  that  you  cannot  dispute  the  charge  which  I  make, 
that  this  trial  has  been  submerged,  immersed  in  passion  from  its  inception 
to  its  close,  and  even  to  this  hour,  standing  here  upon  the  scaffold  as  I  do, 
with  the  hangman  awaiting  me  with  his  halter,  there  are  those  who  claim  to 
represent  public  sentiment  in  this  city,  and  I  now  speak  of  the  capitalistic 
press — that  vile  and  infamous  organ  of  monopoly  of  hired  liars,  the  people’s 
oppressor — even  to  this  day  these  papers  are  clamoring  for  our  blood  in  the 
heat  and  violence  of  passion.  Who  can  deny  this?  Certainly  not  this  court. 
The  court  is  fully  aware  of  the  facts. 

In  order  that  I  may  place  myself  properly  before  you,  it  is  necessary,  in 
vindication  of  whatever  I  may  have  said  or  done  in  the  history  of  my  past 
life,  that  I  should  enter  somewhat  into  details,  and  I  claim,  even  at  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  being  lengthy,  the  ends  of  justice  require  that  this  shall  be  done. 

For  the  past  twenty  years  my  life  has  been  closely  identified  with,  and  I 
have  actively  participated  in,  what  is  known  as  the  labor  movement  in 
America.  I  have  some  knowledge  of  that  movement  in  consequence  of  this 
experience  and  of  the  careful  study  which  opportunity  has  afforded  me  from 
time  to  time  to  give  to  the  matter,  and  what  I  have  to  say  upon  this  subject 
relating  to  the  labor  movement  or  to  myself  as  connected  with  it  in  this 
trial  and  before  this  bar — I  will  speak  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  be  the  con¬ 
sequences  what  they  may. 

The  United  States  census  for  1880  reports  that  there  are  in  the  United 
States  16,200,000  wage  workers.  These  are  the  persons  who,  by  their  indus¬ 
try,  create  all  the  wealth  of  this  country.  And  now  before  I  say  anything 
further  it  may  be  neccessary  in  order  to  clearly  understand  what  I  am  going 
to  stale  further  on,  for  me  to  define  what  I  mean  and  what  is  meant  in  the 
labor  movement  by  these  words,  wage  worker.  Wage  workers  are  those  who 
work  for  wages  and  -who  have  no  other  means  of  subsistence  than  the  sell¬ 
ing  of  their  daily  toil  from  hour  to  hour,  day  to  day,  week  to  week,  month 
to  month,  and  year  to  year,  as  the  case  may  be.  Their  whole  property  con¬ 
sists  entirely  of  their  labor — strength  and  skill  or,  rather,  they  possess  noth¬ 
ing  but  their  empty  hands.  They  live  only  when  afforded  an  opportunity  to 
work,  and  this  opportunity  must  be  procured  from  the  possessors  of  the 
means  of  subsistence — capital — before  their  right  to  live  at  all  or  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  do  so  is  possessed.  Now,  there  are  16,200,000  of  these  people  in  the 
United  States,  according  to  the  census  of  1880.  Among  this  number  are 
9,000,000  men,  and  reckoning  five  persons  to  each  family,  they  represent  45,- 
000.000  of  our  population.  It  is  claimed  that  there  are  between  eleven  and 
twelve  million  voters  in  the  United  States.  Now,  out  of  these  12.000,000 
voters,  9,000,000  are  wage  workers.  The  remainder  of  the  16,200,000  is  com- 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


67 


posed  of  the  women  and  children  employed  in  the  factories,  the  mines  and  the 
various  avocations  of  this  country.  This  class  of  people — the  working  class 
— who  alone  do  all  the  useful  and  productive  labor  of  this  country  are  the 
hirelings  and  dependents  of  the  propertied  class. 

Your  honor,  I  have,  as  a  workingman,  espoused  what  I  conceive  to  be 
the  just  claims  of  the  working  class;  I  have  defended  their  right  to  liberty 
and  insisted  upon  their  right  to  control  their  own  labor  and  the  fruits  there¬ 
of,  and  in  the  statement  that  I  am  to  make  here  before  this  court  upon  the 
question  why  I  should  not  be  sentenced,  or  why  I  should  be  permitted  to 
have  a  new  trial,  you  will  also  be  made  to  understand  why  there  is  a  class 
of  men  in  this  country  who  come  to  your  honor  and  appeal  to  you  not  to 
grant  us  a  new  trial.  1  believe,  sir,  that  the  representatives  of  that  mil¬ 
lionaire  organization  of  Chicago,  known  as  the  Chicago  Citizens’  Association 
stand  to  a  man  demanding  of  your  honor  our  immediate  extinction  and  sup¬ 
pression  by  an  ignominious  death.  Now,  I  stand  here  as  one  of  the  people, 
a  common  man,  a  workingman,  one  of  the  masses,  and  I  ask  your  honor  to 
give  ear  to  what  I  have  to  say  You  stand  as  a  bulwark;  you  are  as  a  brake 
between  them  and  us.  You  are  here  as  the  representative  of  justice,  hold¬ 
ing  the  poised  scales  in  your  hands.  You  are  expected  to  look  neither  to 
the  right  nor  the  left,  but  to  that  by  which  justice,  and  justice  alone,  shall  be 
subserved.  The  conviction  of  a  man,  your  honor,  does  not  necessarily  prove 
that  he  is  guilty.  Your  law  books  are  filled  with  instances  where  men  have 
been  carried  to  the  scaffold  and  after  their  death  it  has  been  proven  that 
their  execution  was  a  judicial  murder.  Now,  what  end  can  be  subserved  in 
hurrying  this  matter  through  in  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  done? 
Where  are  the  ends  of  justice  subserved,  and  where  is  truth  found  in  hur¬ 
rying  seven  human  beings  at  the  rate  of  express  speed  to  the  scaffold  and  an 
ignominious  death?  Why,  if  your  honor  please,  the  very  method  of  our  ex¬ 
termination,  the  deep  damnation  of  our  taking  off,  appeals  to  your  honor’s 
sense  of  justice,  of  rectitude,  and  of  honor.  A  judge  may  also  be  an  unjust 
man.  Such  things  have  been  known.  We  have,  in  our  histories,  heard  of 
Lord  Jeffreys.  It  need  not  follow  that  because  a  man  is  a  judge  he  is  also 
just.  As  everyone  knows,  it  has  long  since  become  the  practice  in  American 
politics  for  the  candidates  for  judgeships,  throughout  the  United  States,  to 
be  named  by  corporations  and  monopoly  influences,  and  it  is  a  well  known 
secret  that  more  than  one  of  our  chief  justices  have  been  appointed  to  their 
seats  upon  the  bench  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  at  the  instance 
of  the  leading  railway  magnates  of  America — the  Huntingtons  and  Jay 
Goulds.  Therefore  the  people  are  beginning  to  lose  confidence  in  some  of 
our  courts  of  law. 

Now,  I  have  not  been  able  to  gather  together  and  put  in  a  consecutive 
shape  these  thoughts  which  I  wish  to  present  here  for  your  consideration. 
They  have  been  put  together  hurriedly  in  the  last  few  days,  since  we  began 
to  come  in  here,  first,  because  I  did  not  know  what  you  would  do,  nor  what 
the  position  of  your  honor  would  be  in  the  case,  and  secondly,  because  I  did 
not  know  upon  what  ground  the  conclusion  of  the  prosecution  would  be 
made  denying  us  the  right  of  a  rehearing;  and,  therefore,  if  the  method 
of  the  presentation  of  this  matter  be  somewhat  disconnected  and  disjointed, 
it  may  be  ascribed  to  that  fact,  over  which  I  had  no  control. 

I  maintain  that  our  execution,  as  the  matter  stands  just  now,  would  be 
a  judicial  murder,  rank  and  foul,  and  judicial  murder  is  far  more  infamous 
than  lynch  law — far  worse.  Bear  in  mind,  please,  this  trial  was  conducted 
by  a  mob,  prosecuted  by  a  mob,  by  the  shrieks  and  howls  of  a  mob,  an  or¬ 
ganized,  powerful  mob.  But  that  trial  is  now  over.  You  sit  here  judicially, 
calmly,  quietly,  and  it  is  now  for  you  to  look  at  this  thing  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  reason  and  common  sense.  There  is  one  peculiarity  about  the  case 
that  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to.  It  was  the  manner  and  the  method  of 
its  prosecution !  On  the  one  side,  the  attorneys  for  the  prosecution  con- 


68 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


ducted  this  case  from  the  standpoint  of  capitalists  as  against  the  laborers. 
On  the  other  side,  the  attorneys  for  the  defense  conducted  this  case  as  a 
defense  against  murder,  not  for  laborers  and  not  against  capitalists.  The 
prosecution  in  this  case  throughout  has  been  a  capitalistic  prosecution,  in¬ 
spired  by  the  instinct  of  capitalism,  and  I  mean  by  that,  by  class  feelings,  by 
a  dictatorial  right  to  rule,  and  a  denial  to  common  people  of  the  right  to  say 
anything  or  have  anything  to  say  to  these  men,  by  that  class  of  persons  who 
think  that  working  people  have  but  one  right  and  one  duty  to  perform,  viz., 
obedience.  They  conducted  this  trial  from  that  standpoint  throughout,  and, 
as  was  very  truthfully  stated  by  my  Comrade  Fielden,  we  were  prosecuted 
ostensibly  for  murder,  until,  near  the  end  of  the  trial,  when  all  at  once  the 
jury  is  commanded,  yea,  commanded  to  render  a  verdict  against  us  as  An¬ 
archists.  Your  honor,  you  are  aware  of  this;  you  know  this  to  be  the  truth; 
you  sat  and  heard  it  all.  I  will  not  make  a  statement  but  what  will  be  in 
accord  with  the  facts,  and  what  I  do  say  is  said  for  the  purpose  of  refresh¬ 
ing  your  memory  and  asking  you  to  look  at  both  sides  of  this  matter  and 
view  it  from  the  standpoint  of  reason  and  common  sense. 

Now,  the  money  makers,  the  business  men,  those  people  who  deal  in 
stocks  and  bonds,  the  speculators  and  employers,  all  that  class  of  men  known 
as  the  money  making  class,  have  no  conception  of  this  labor  question ;  they 
don’t  understand  what  it  means.  To  use  the  street  parlance,  with  many  of 
them  it  is  a  difficult  matter  to  “catch  onto”  it,  and  they  are  perverse  also ; 
they  will  not  have  knowledge  of  it.  They  don’t  want  to  know  anything  about 
it,  and  they  won’t  hear  anything  about  it,  and  they  propose  to  club,  lock 
up,  and,  if  necessary,  strangle  those  who  insist  on  their  hearing  this  ques¬ 
tion.  Can  it  any  longer  be  denied  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  labor 
question? 

I  am  an  Anarchist.  Now  strike!  But  hear  me  before  you  strike.  What 
is  Socialism,  or  Anarchism?  Briefly  stated,  it  is  the  right  of  the  toiler  to 
the  free  and  equal  use  of  the  tools  of  production,  and  the  right  of  the  pro¬ 
ducers  to  their  product.  That  is  Socialism.  The  history  of  mankind  is  one 
of  growth.  It  has  been  evolutionary  and  revolutionary.  The  dividing  line 
between  evolution  and  revolution,  or  that  imperceptible  boundary  line  where 
one  begins  and  the  other  ends  can  never  be  designated.  Who  believed  at 
the  time  that  our  fathers  tossed  the  tea  into  Boston  harbor  that  it  meant 
the  first  act  of  the  revolution  separating  this  continent  from  the  dominion 
of  George  III.  and  founding  this  republic  here  in  which  we,  their  descend¬ 
ants,  live  today.  Evolution  and  revolution  are  synonymous.  Evolution  is 
the  incubatory  state  of  revolution.  The  birth  is  the  revolution — its  process 
the  evolution. 

What  is  the  history  of  man  with  regard  to  the  laboring  classes?  Origin¬ 
ally  the  earth  and  its  contents  were  held  in  common  by  all  men.  Then  came 
a  change  brought  about  by  violence,  robbery  and  wholesale  murder,  called 
war.  Later,  but  still  way  back  in  history,  we  find  that  there  were  but  two 
classes  in  the  world — slaves  and  masters.  Time  rolled  on  and  we  find  a  la¬ 
bor  system  of  serfdom.  This  serf  labor  system  existed  in  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries,  and  throughout  the  world  the  serf  had  a  right  to  the 
soil  on  which  he  lived.  The  lord  of  the  land  could  not  exclude  him  from  its 
use.  But  the  discovery  of  America  and  the  developments  which  followed 
that  discovery  and  its  settlement,  a  century  or  two  afterwards,  the  gold 
found  in  Peru  and  Mexico  by  the  invading  hosts  of  Pizarro  and  Cortez,  who 
carried  back  to  Europe  this  precious  metal,  infused  new  vitality  into  the 
commercial  stagnant  blood  of  Europe  and  set  in  motion  those  wheels  which 
have  rolled  on  and  on,  until  today  commerce  covers  the  face  of  the  earth ; 
time  is  annihilated  and  distance  is  known  no  more.  Following  the  aboli¬ 
tion  of  the  serfdom  system  was  the  establishment  of  the  wage  labor  system. 
This  found  its  fruition,  or  birth,  rather,  in  the  French  Revolutions  of  1789 
and  1793.  It  was  then  for  the  first  time  that  civil  and  political  liberty  was 


ADDRESS  Or  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


69 


established  in  Europe.  We  see,  by  a  mere  glance  back  into  history,  that  the 
sixteenth  century  was  engaged  in  a  struggle  for  religious  freedom  and  the 
right  of  conscience — mental  liberty.  Following  that  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  was  the  struggle  throughout  France  which  resulted  in 
the  establishment  of  the  republic  and  the  founding  of  the  right  of  political 
liberty.  The  struggle  today,  which  follows  on  in  the  line  of  progress  and 
in  the  logic  of  events,  is  the  industrial  problem,  of  which  we  were  the  repre¬ 
sentatives,  as  the  State’s  attorney  has  said  we  were,  selected  by  the  grand 
jury  because  we  were  leaders,  and  are  to  be  punished  and  consigned  to  an 
ignominious  death  for  that  reason,  that  the  wage  slaves  of  Chicago  and  of 
America  may  be  horrified,  terror-stricken,  and  driven  like  rats  back  to  their 
holes,  to  hunger,  slavery,  misery  and  death.  The  industrial  question,  fol¬ 
lowing  on  in  the  natural  order  of  events,  the  wage  system  of  industry  is  now 
up  for  consideration;  it  presses  for  a  hearing;  it  demands  a  solution;  it 
cannot  be  throttled  by  this  district  attorney,  nor  all  the  district  attorneys  up¬ 
on  the  soil  of  America. 

Now,  what  is  this  labor  question  which  these  gentlemen  treat  with  such 
profound  contempt,  for  advocating  which  these  distinguished  “honorable” 
gentlemen  would  throttle  and  put  us  to  an  ignominious  death  and  hurry  us 
like  rats  into  our  holes?  What  is  it?  You  will  pardon  me  if  I  exhibit  some 
feeling.  I  have  sat  here  for  two  months,  and  these  men  have  poured  their 
vituperations  out  upon  my  head  and  I  have  not  been  permitted  to  utter  a 
single  word  in  my  own  defense.  For  two  months  they  have  poured  their 
poison  upon  me  and  upon  my  colleagues.  For  two  months  they  have  sat 
here  and  spat  like  adders  the  vile  poison  of  their  tongues,  and  if  men  could 
have  been  placed  in  a  mental  inquisition  and  tortured  to  death,  these  men 
would  have  succeeded  here  now,  for  we  have  been  vilified,  misrepresented, 
held  in  loathsome  contempt,  without  a  chance  to  speak  or  contradict  a  word. 
Therefore,  if  I  show  emotion,  it  is  because  of  this,  and  if  my  comrades  and 
colleagues  with  me  here  have  spoken  in  such  strains  as  these,  it  is  because  of 
this.  Pardon  us.  Look  at  it  from  the  right  standpoint.  What  is  this  la¬ 
bor  question?  It  is  not  a  question  of  emotion;  the  labor  question  is  not  a 
question  of  sentiment;  it  is  not  a  religious  matter;  it  is  not  a  political 
problem ;  no,  sir,  it  is  a  stern  economic  fact,  a  stubborn  and  immovable  fact. 
It  has,  it  is  true,  its  emotional  phase;  it  has  its  sentimental,  religious,  po¬ 
litical  aspects ;  but  the  sum  total  of  this  question  is  the  bread  and  butter 
question,  the  how  and  why  we  shall  live  and  earn  our  daily  bread.  This  is 
the  labor  movement  It  has  a  scientific  basis.  It  is  founded  upon  fact,  and 
I  have  been  to  considerable  pains  in  my  researches  of  well  known  and  dis¬ 
tinguished  authors  on  this  question  to  collect  and  present  to  you  briefly  what 
this  question  is  and  what  it  springs  from.  I  will  first  explain  to  you  briefly 
what  capital  is: 

Capital  is  the  stored  up  and  accumulated  surplus  of  past  labor;  capital  is 
the  product  of  labor.  The  function  of  capital  is  to  appropriate  or  confiscate 
for  its  own  use  and  benefit  the  “surplus”  labor  product  of  the  wage  laborer. 
The  capitalistic  system  originated  in  the  forcible  seizure  of  natural  opportu¬ 
nities  and  rights  by  a  few,  and  then  converting  those  things  into  special 
privileges  which  have  since  become  vested  rights,  formally  entrenched  be¬ 
hind  the  bulwarks  of  statute  law  and  government.  Capital  could  not  exist 
unless  there  also  existed  a  majority  class  who  were  propertyless,  that  is, 
without  capital,  a  class  whose  only  mode  of  existence  is  the  selling  of  their 
labor  to  capitalists.  Capitalism  is  maintained,  fostered,  and  perpetuated  by 
law;  in  fact,  capital  is  law — statute  law — and  law  is  capital.  Now,  briefly 
stated,  for  I  will  not  take  your  time  but  for  a  moment,  what  is  labor?  La¬ 
bor  is  a  commodity  and  wages  is  the  price  paid  for  it.  The  owner  of  this 
commodity  sells  it,  that  is,  himself,  to  the  owner  of  capital  in  order  to  live. 
Labor  is  the  expression  of  energy,  the  power  of  the  laborer’s  life.  This 
energy  or  power  he  must  sell  to  another  person  in  order  to  live.  It  is  his 


70 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


only  means  of  existence.  He  works  to  live,  but  his  work  is  not  simply  a 
part  of  his  life;  it  is  the  sacrifice  of  it.  His  labor  is  a  commodity  which  un¬ 
der  the  guise  of  free  labor  he  is  forced  by  necessity  to  hand  over  to  another 
party.  The  whole  of  the  wage  laborer’s  activity  is  not  the  product  of  his 
labor — far  from  it.  The  silk  he  weaves,  the  palace  he  builds,  the  ores  he 
digs  from  out  the  mines,  are  not  for  him.  The  only  thing  he  produces  for 
himself  is  his  wages,  and  the  silk,  the  ores,  and  the  palace  which  he  built, 
are  simply  transformed  for  him  into  a  certain  kind  of  means  of  existence, 
namely,  a  cotton  shirt,  a  few  pennies,  and  the  mere  tenancy  of  a  lodging 
house.  In  other  words,  his  wages  represent  the  bare  necessities  of  his  ex¬ 
istence,  and  the  unpaid-for  or  “surplus”  portion  of  his  labor  product  con¬ 
stitutes  the  vast  superabundant  wealth  of  the  non-producing  or  capitalist 
class. 

That  is  the  capitalist  system  defined  in  a  few  words.  It  is  this  system 
that  creates  these  classes,  and  it  is  these  classes  that  produce  this  conflict. 
This  conflict  intensifies  as  the  power  of  the  privileged  classes  over  the  non¬ 
possessing  or  propertyless  classes  increases  and  intensifies,  and  this  power 
increases  as  the  idle  few  become  richer  and  the  producing  many  become 
poorer;  and  this  produces  what  is  called  the  labor  movement.  This  is  the 
labor  question.  Wealth  is  power;  poverty  is  weakness. 

If  I  had  time  I  might  stop  here  to  answer  some  suggestions  that  prob¬ 
ably  arise  in  the  minds  of  some  persons,  or  perhaps  of  your  honor,  not  being 
familiar  with  this  question.  I  imagine  I  hear  your  honor  say,  “Why,  labor 
is  free.  This  is  a  free  country.”  Now,  we  had  in  the  southern  states  for 
nearly  a  century  a  form  of  labor  known  as  chattel  slave  labor.  That  has 
been  abolished,  and  I  hear  you  say  that  labor  is  free ;  that  the  war  has  re¬ 
sulted  in  establishing  free  labor  all  over  America.  Is  this  true?  Look  at 
it.  The  chattel  slave  of  the  past — the  wage  slave  of  today;  what  is  the 
difference?  The  master  selected  under  chattel  slavery  his  own  slaves.  Un¬ 
der  the  wage  slavery  system  the  wage  slave  selects  his  master,  and  he  has 
got  to  find  one  or  else  he  is  carried  down  here  to  my  friend,  the  jailer,  and 
occupies  a  cell  along  side  of  myself.  He  is  compelled  to  find  one.  So  the 
change  of  the  industrial  system,  in  the  language  of  Jefferson  Davis,  ex¬ 
president  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  in  an  interview  with  the  New  York 
Herald  upon  the  question  of  the  chattel  slave  system  of  the  South  and  that 
of  the  so-called  “free  laborer,”  and  their  wages — Jefferson  Davis  stated  posi¬ 
tively  that  the  change  was  a  decided  benefit  to  the  former  chattel  slave 
owners  who  would  not  exchange  the  new  system  of  wage  labor  at  all  for 
chattel  labor,  because  now  the  dead  had  to  bury  themselves  and  the  sick 
take  care  of  themselves,  and  now  they  don’t  have  to  employ  overseers  to 
look  after  them.  They  give  them  a  task  to  do — a  certain  amount  to  do. 
They  say:  “Now,  here,  perform  this  piece  of  work  in  a  certain  length  of 
time,”  and  if  you  don’t  (under  the  wage  system,  says  Mr.  Davis),  why, 
when  you  come  around  for  your  pay  next  Saturday,  you  simply  find  in  the 
envelope  which  contains  your  money,  a  note  which  informs  you  of  the  fact 
that  you  have  been  discharged.  Now,  Jefferson  Davis  admitted  in  his  state¬ 
ment  that  the  leather  thong  dipped  in  salt  brine,  for  the  chattel  slave,  had 
been  exchanged  under  the  wage  system  for  the  lash  of  hunger,  an  empty 
stomach  and  the  ragged  back  of  the  wage  slave  of  free  born  American 
sovereign  citizens,  who,  according  to  the  census  of  the  United  States  for 
1880,  constitute  more  than  nine-tenths  of  our  entire  population. 

But  you  say  the  wage  slave  had  advantages  over  the  chattel  slave.  The 
chattel  slave  couldn’t  get  away  from  it.  Well,  if  we  had  the  statistics,  I 
believe  it  could  be  shown  that  as  many  chattel  slaves  escaped  from  bondage 
with  the  bloodhounds  of  their  masters  after  them  as  they  tracked  their  way 
over  the  snow-beaten  rocks  of  Canada,  and  via  the  underground  grape  vine 
road — I  believe  the  statistics  would  show  that  as  many  chattel  slaves  escaped 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


71 


from  their  bondage  under  that  system  as  can  and  do  escape  today  from  wage 
bondage  into  capitalistic  liberty. 

I  am  a  Socialist,  I  am  one  of  those,  although  myself  a  wage  slave,  whq 
holds  that  it  is  wrong,  wrong  to  myself,  wrong  to  my  neighbor,  and  unjust 
to  my  fellowmen  for  me,  wage  slave  that  I  am,  to  undertake  to  make  my 
escape  from  wage  slavery  by  becoming  a  master  and  an  owner  of  slaves  my¬ 
self.  I  refuse  to  do  it;  I  refuse  equally  to  be  a  slave  or  the  owner  of  slaves. 
Had  I  chosen  another  path  in  life,  I  might  be  upon  the  avenue  of  the  city 
of  Chicago  today,  surrounded  in  my  beautiful  home  with  luxury  and  ease, 
with  slaves  to  do  my  bidding.  But  I  chose  the  other  road,  and  instead  I 
stand  here  today  upon  the  scaffold.  This  is  my  crime.  Before  high  heaven 
this  and  this  alone  is  my  crime.  I  have  been  false  and  a  traitor  to  the  in¬ 
famies  that  exist  today  in  capitalistic  society.  If  this  is  a  crime  in  your 
opinion  I  plead  guilty  to  it. 

Now,  be  patient  with  me;  I  have  been  with  you,  or  rather,  I  have  been 
patient  with  this  trial.  Follow  me,  if  you  please,  and  look  at  the  oppressions 
of  this  capitalistic  system  of  industry.  As  was  depicted  by  my  comrade 
Fielden,  this  morning,  every  new  machine  that  comes  into  existence  comes 
as  a  competitor  with  the  man  of  labor;  as  a  drag  and  menace  and  a  prey 
to  the  very  existence  of  those  who  have  to  sell  their  labor  in  order  to  earn 
their  bread.  The  man  is  turned  out  to  starve,  and  whole  occupations  and 
pursuits  are  revolutionized  and  completely  destroyed  by  the  introduction  of 
machinery,  in  a  day,  in  an  hour  as  it  were.  I  have  known  it  to  be  the  case 
in  the  history  of  my  own  life — and  I  am  yet  a  young  man — that  whole  pur¬ 
suits  and  occupations  have  been  wiped  out  by  the  invention  of  machinery. 

What  becomes  of  these  people?  Where  are  they?  They  become  compet¬ 
itors  of  other  laborers  and  are  made  to  reduce  wages  and  increase  the  work 
hours.  Many  of  them  are  candidates  for  the  gibbet,  they  are  candidates  for 
your  prison  celis.  Build  more  penitentiaries ;  erect  new  scaffolds,  for  these 
men  are  upon  the  highway  of  crime,  of  misery,  of  death.  Your  honor,  there 
never  was  an  effect  without  a  cause.  The  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit.  So¬ 
cialists  are  not  those  who  blindly  close  their  eyes  and  refuse  to  look,  and  who 
refuse  to  hear,  but  having  eyes  to  see,  they  see,  and  having  ears  to  hear,  they 
hear.  Look  at  this  capitalistic  system;  look  at  its  operation  upon  the  small 
business  men;  the  small  dealers,  the  middle  class.  Bradstreet’s  tells  us  in 
last  year’s  report  that  there  were  11,000  small  business  men  financially  de¬ 
stroyed  during  the  past  twelve  months.  What  became  of  those  people? 
Where  are  they,  and  why  have  they  been  wiped  out?  Has  there  been  any 
less  wealth?  No;  that  which  they  possessed  has  simply  been  transferred  into 
the  hands  of  some  other  person.  Who  is  that  other?  It  is  he  who  has 
greater  capitalistic  facilities.  It  is  the  monopolist,  the  man  who  can  run 
corners,  who  can  create  rings  and  squeeze  these  men  to  death  and  wipe 
them  out  like  dead  flies  from  the  table  into  his  monopolistic  basket.  The 
middle  classes  destroyed  in  this  manner  join  the  ranks  of  the  proletariat. 
They  become  what?  They  seek  out  the  factory  gate,  they  seek  in  the  vari¬ 
ous  occupations  of  wage  labor  employment.  What  is  the  result?  Then  there 
are  more  men  upon  the  market.  This  increases  the  number  of  those  who 
are  applying  for  employment.  What  then?  This  intensifies  the  competition, 
which  in  turn  creates  greater  monopolists,  and  with  it  wages  go  down  until 
the  starvation  point  is  reached,  and  then  what?  Your  honor,  Socialism  comes 
to  the  people  and  asks  them  to  look  into  this  thing,  to  discuss  it,  to  reason, 
to  examine  it,  to  investigate  it,  to  know  the  facts,  because  it  is  by  this,  and 
this  alone,  that  violence  will  be  prevented  and  bloodshed  will  be  avoided ; 
because,  as  my  friend  here  has  said,  men  in  their  blind  rage,  in  their  igno¬ 
rance,  not  knowing  what  ails  them,  knowing  that  they  are  hungry,  that  they 
are  miserable  and  destitute,  strike  blindly,  and  do  as  they  did  with  Maxwell 
here,  and  fight  the  labor  saving  machinery.  Imagine  such  an  absurd  thing, 
and  yet  the  capitalistic  press  has  taken  great  pains  to  say  that  Socialists  do 


72 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


these  things;  that  we  tight  machinery;  that  we  fight  property.  Why,  sir, 
it  is  an  absurdity;  it  is  ridiculous;  it  is  preposterous.  No  man  ever  heard 
an  utterance  from  the  mouth  of  a  Socialist  to  advise  anything  of  the  kind. 
They  knew  to  the  contrary.  We  don’t  fight  machinery;  we  don’t  oppose  the 
thing.  It  is  only  the  manner  and  methods  of  employing  them  that  we  ob¬ 
ject  to.  That  is  all.  It  is  the  manipulations  of  these  things  in  the  interests 
of  a  few;  it  is  the  monopolization  of  them  that  we  object  to.  We  desire 
that  all  the  forces  of  nature,  all  the  forces  of  society,  of  the  gigantic  strength 
which  has  resulted  from  the  combined  intellect  and  labor  of  the  ages  of  the 
past  shall  be  turned  over  to  man,  and  made  his  servant,  his  obedient  slave 
forever.  This  is  the  object  of  Socialism.  It  asks  no  one  to  give  up  any¬ 
thing.  It  seeks  no  harm  to  anybody.  But,  when  we  witness  this  condition 
of  things,  when  we  see  little  children  huddling  around  the  factory  gates, 
the  poor  little  things  whose  bones  are  not  yet  hard;  when  we  see  them 
clutched  from  the  hearthstone,  taken  from  the  family  altar,  carried  to  the 
bastiles  of  labor  and  their  little  bones  ground  up  into  gold  dust  to  bedeck 
the  form  of  some  aristocratic  Jezebel,  then  it  stirs  us  and  we  speak  out. 
We  plead  for  the  little  ones;  we  plead  for  the  helpless;  we  plead  for  the 
oppressed;  we  seek  redress  for  those  who  are  wronged;  we  seek  knowledge 
and  intelligence  for  the  ignorant;  we  seek  liberty  for  the  slave.  Socialism 
secures  the  welfare  of  every  human  being. 

Your  honor,  if  you  will  permit  it,  I  would  like  to  stop  now  and  resume 
tomorrow  morning. 

The  court  here  adjourned  until  10  o’clock  the  following  day,  when  Mr. 
Parsons  resumed  his  address. 

Your  honor,  I  concluded  last  evening  at  that  portion  of  my  statement 
which  had  for  its  purpose  a  showing  of  the  operations  and  effects  of  our 
existing  social  system,  the  evils  which  naturally  flow  from  the  established 
social  relations,  which  are  founded  upon  the  economic  subjection  of  depend¬ 
ence  of  the  man  of  labor  to  the  monopolizer  of  the  means  of  labor  and  the 
resources  of  life.  I  sought  in  this  connection  to  show,  that  all  the  ills  that 
afflict  society — social  miseries,  mental  degradations,  political  dependence — all 
resulted  from  the  economic  subjection  and  dependence  of  the  man  of  labor 
upon  the  monopolizer  of  the  means  of  existence;  and  as  long  as  the  cause 
remains  the  effect  must  certainly  follow.  I  pointed  out  what  Bradstreet’s 
had  to  say  in  regard  to  the  destruction  of  the  middle  class  last  year.  As 
it  affects  the  small  dealers,  the  middle  class  men  of  our  shop  streets,  the 
influences  are  likewise  at  work  among  the  farming  classes. 

According  to  statistics  ninety  per  cent  of  the  farms  of  America  are  to¬ 
day  under  mortgage.  The  man  who  a  few  years  ago  owned  the  soil  that  he 
worked,  is  today  a  tenant,  and  a  mortgage  is  placed  upon  his  soil,  and  when 
he,  the  farmer  whose  hand  tickles  the  earth  and  causes  it  to  blossom  as  the 
rose  and  bring  forth  its  rich  food  of  human  sustenance — even  while  this 
man  is  asleep,  the  interest  upon  his  mortgage  continues.  It  grows  and  it 
increases,  rendering  it  more  and  more  difficult  for  him  to  get  along  or  make 
his  living.  In  the  meantime  the  railway  corporations  place  upon  the  traffic 
all  that  it  will  bear.  The  Board  of  Trade  sharks  run  their  corners  until — 
what?  Until  it  occurs  as  stated  in  the  Chicago  Tribune  about  three  months 
ago,  that  a  freight  train  of  corn  from  Iowa  consigned  to  a  commission 
merchant  in  Chicago,  had  to  be  sold  for  less  than  the  cost  of  freight,  and 
there  was  a  balance  of  $3  due  the  commission  man  on  the  freight  after  he  had 
sold  the  corn.  The  freightage  upon  that  corn  was  three  dollars  more  than 
the  corn  brought  in  the  market.  So  it  is  with  the  tenant  farmers  of 
America.  Your  honor,  we  do  not  have  to  go  to  Ireland  to  find  the  evils 
of  landlordism.  We  do  not  have  to  cross  the  Atlantic  to  find  Lord  Lie- 
trim’s  rackrenters,  or  landlords  who  evict  their  tenants.  We  have  them  all 
around  us.  There  is  Ireland  right  here  in  Chicago  and  everywhere  else  in 
this  country.  Look  at  Bridgeport  where  the  Irish  live !  Look !  Tenants  at 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


73 


will,  huddled  together  as  State’s  Attorney  Grinnell  calls  them,  like  rats ; 
living  as  they  do  in  Dublin,  living  precisely  as  they  do  in  Limerick — taxed 
to  death,  unable  to  meet  the  extortions  of  the  landlord. 

We  were  told  by  the  prosecution  that  law  is  on  trial;  that  government 
is  on  trial.  That  is  what  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  stated  to  the  jury. 
The  law  is  on  trial,  and  government  is  on  trial.  Well,  up  to  near  the  con¬ 
clusion  of  this  trial  we,  the  defendants,  supposed  that  we  were  indicted  and 
being  tried  for  murder.  Now,  if  the  law  is  on  trial  and  if  the  government 
is  on  trial,  who  placed  it  upon  trial?  And  I  leave  it  to  the  people  of 
America  whether  the  prosecution  in  this  case  have  made  out  a  case;  and  I 
charge  it  here  now  frankly  that  in  order  to  bring  about  this  conviction  the 
prosecution,  the  representatives  of  the  State,  the  sworn  officers  of  the  law, 
those  whose  obligation  is  to  the  people  to  obey  the  law  and  preserve  order 
— I  charge  upon  them  a  willful,  a  malicious,  a  purposed  violation  of  every 
law  which  guarantees  a  right  to  American  citizens.  They  have  violated  free 
speech.  In  the  prosecution  of  this  case  they  have  violated  a  free  press.  They 
have  violated  the  right  of  public  assembly.  Yea,  they  have  even  violated 
and  denounced  the  right  of  self-defense.  I  charge  the  crime  home  to  them. 
These  great  blood  bought  rights,  for  which  our  forefathers  spent  centuries 
of  struggle,  it  is  attempted  to  run  them  like  rats  into  a  hole  by  the  prose¬ 
cution  in  this  case.  Why,  gentlemen,  law  is  upon  trial;  government  is  upon 
trial,  indeed.  Yea,  they  are  themselves  guilty  of  the  precise  thing  of  which 
they  accuse  me.  They  say  that  I  am  an  Anarchist  and  refuse  to  respect  the 
law.  “By  their  works  ye  shall  know  them,”  and  out  of  their  own  mouths 
they  stand  condemned.  They  are  the  real  Anarchists  in  this  case,  while  we 
stand  upon  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  have  violated  no  law 
of  this  country.  Neither  I  nor  my  colleagues  here  have  violated  any  legal 
right  of  American  citizens.  We  stand  upon  the  right  of  free  speech,  of  free 
press,  of  public  assemblage,  unmolested  and  undisturbed.  We  stand  upon 
the  constitutional  right  of  self-defense,  and  we  defy  the  prosecution  to  rob 
the  people  of  America  of  these  dearly  bought  rights.  But  the  prosecution 
imagines  that  they  have  triumphed  because  they  propose  to  put  to  death 
seven  men.  Seven  men  to  be  exterminated  in  violation  of  the  law,  because 
they  insist  upon  the  inalienable  rights  granted  them  by  the  constitution. 
Seven  men  are  to  be  exterminated,  because  they  demand  the  right  of  free 
speech  and  exercise  it.  Seven  men  by  this  court  of  law  are  to  be  put  to 
death,  because  they  claim  their  right  of  self-defense.  Do  you  think,  gentle¬ 
men  of  the  prosecution,  that  you  will  have  settled  the  case  when  you  are 
carrying  my  lifeless  bones  to  the  potter’s  field?  Do  you  think  that  this  trial 
will  be  settled  by  my  strangulation  and  that  of  my  colleagues?  I  tell  you 
that  there  is  a  greater  verdict  yet  to  be  heard  from.  The  American  people 
will  have  something  to  say  about  this  attempt  to  destroy  their  rights,  which 
they  hold  sacred.  The  American  people  will  have  something  to  say  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  constitution  of  this  country  can  be  trampled  under  foot 
at  the  dictation  of  monopoly  and  corporations  and  their  hired  tools. 

Your  honor  read  yesterday  your  reasons  for  refusing  us  a  new  trial,  and 
I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  it,  if  you  please,  on  some  points  on  which  I 
think  you  are  laboring  under  misapprehension.  Your  honor  says  that  there 
can  be  no  question  in  the  mind  of  any  one  who  has  read  these  articles  (re¬ 
ferring  to  the  Alarm  and  Arbeit er-Zeitung) ,  or  heard  these  speeches,  which 
were  written  and  spoken  long  before  the  eight  hour  movement  was  talked 
of,  that  this  movement  which  we  advocated  was  but  a  means  in  our  esti¬ 
mation  toward  the  ends  which  we  sought,  and  the  movement  itself  was  not 
primarily  of  any  consideration  at  all.  Now,  your  honor,  I  submit  that  you 
are  sitting  in  judgment  not  alone  upon  my  acts,  but  also  upon  my  motives. 
That  is  a  dangerous  thing  for  any  man  to  do;  any  man  is  so  liable  to  make 
a  mistake  in  a  matter  of  that  kind.  I  claim  that  it  would  not  be  fair  for 
you  to  assume  to  state  what  my  motives  were  in  the  eight  hour  movement; 


7  4 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


^  « 


that  I  was  simply  using  it  for  another  purpose.  How  do  you  know  that? 
Can  you  read  my  heart  and  order  my  actions?  If  you  go  by  the  record,  it 
will  disprove  your  honor’s  conjecture,  because  it  is  a  conjecture! 

The  State’s  attorney  has  throughout  this  trial  done  precisely  what  Mr. 
English,  the  reporter  of  the  Tribune,  said  he  was  instructed  to  do  by  the 
proprietor  of  the  Tribune,  when  he  attended  labor  meetings.  It  was  the 
custom  of  the  chief  editors  of  the  large  dailies  to  instruct  those  who  went 
to  labor  meetings  to  report  only  the  inflammatory  passages  of  the  speaker’s 
remarks-  That  is  precisely  the  scheme  laid  out  by  the  prosecution.  They 
have  presented  you  here  copies  of  the  Alarm  running  back  for  three  years, 
and  my  speeches  covering  three  years  back.  They  have  selected  such  por¬ 
tions  of  those  articles,  and  such  articles,  mark  you,  as  subserve  their  pur¬ 
pose;  such  as  they  supposed  would  be  calculated  to  inflame  your  mind  and 
prejudice  you  and  the  jury  against  us.  You  ought  to  be  careful  of  this 
thing.  It  is  not  fair  or  right  for  you  to  conclude  that  from  the  showing 
made  by  these  gentlemen  we  were  not  what  we  pretended  to  be  in  this 
labor  movement.  Take  the  record.  Why,  I  am  well  known  throughout  the 
United  States  for  years  and  years  past  and  I  have  come  in  personal  contact 
with  hundreds  of  thousands  of  workingmen  from  Nebraska  in  the  West  to 
New  York  in  the  East,  and  from  Maryland  to  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota.  I 
have  traversed  the  states  for  the  past  ten  years,  and  I  am  known  by  hun¬ 
dreds  and  thousands  who  have  seen  and  heard  me. 

Possibly  I  had  better  stop  a  moment,  and  explain  how  this  was.  These 
labor  organizations  sent  for  me.  Sometimes  it  was  the  Knights  of  Labor; 
sometimes  it  was  the  Trades  Unions;  sometimes  the  Socialistic  organiza¬ 
tions;  but  always  as  an  organizer  of  workingmen,  always  as  a  labor  speaker 
at  labor  meetings.  Now,  if  there  is  anything  for  which  I  am  well  known 
it  is  my  advocacy  of  the  eight  hour  system  of  labor;  so  it  is  with  my  col¬ 
leagues  here.  But  because  I  have  said  in  this  connection  that  I  did  not  be¬ 
lieve  it  would  be  possible  to  bring  about  a  reform  of  this  present  wage 
system,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  power  of  the  employing  class  is  so  great 
that  they  can  refuse  to  make  any  concessions,  you  say  that  I  had  no  inter¬ 
est  in  the  eight  hour  movement.  Is  it  not  the  fact  that  the  present  social  sys¬ 
tem  places  all  power  in  the  hands  of  the  capitalist  class?  They  can  and  do 
refuse  to  make  any  concessions,  and  where  they  grant  anything  they  retract 
it  when  they  choose  to  do  so.  They  can  do  it.  The  wage  system  gives 
them  the  power.  The  tyranny  and  the  despotism  of  the  wage  system  of  la¬ 
bor  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  wage  laborer  is  compelled  under  penalty  of 
hunger  and  death  by  starvation  to  obey  and  accept  terms  laid  down  to  him 
by  his  employer.  Hence  1  have  pointed  out  that  it  might  be  difficult  for 
this  reason  to  establish  an  eight  hour  rule.  What  have  I  said  in  this  con¬ 
nection?  I  have  said  to  the  employers,  to  the  manufacturers  and  the  cor¬ 
porations — the  monopolists  of  America :  “Gentlemen,  the  eight  hour  system 
of  labor  is  the  olive  branch  of  peace  held  out  to  you.  Take  it.  Concede 
this  moderate  demand  of  the  working  people.  Give  them  better  opportuni¬ 
ties.  Let  them  possess  the  leisure  which  eight  hours  will  bring.  Let  it 
operate  on  the  wants  and  the  daily  habits  of  the  people.”  I  have  talked  this 
way  to  the  rich  of  this  country  in  every  place  I  have  gone,  and  I  have  told 
them,  not  in  the  language  of  a  threat;  not  in  the  language  of  intimidation; 
I  have  said :  “If  you  do  not  concede  this  demand,  if,  on  the  other  hand,  you 
increase  the  hours  of  labor,  and  employ  more  and  more  machinery,  you 
thereby  increase  the  number  of  enforced  idle ;  you  thereby  swell  the  army 
of  the  compulsory  idle  and  unemployed;  you  create  new  elements  of  dis¬ 
content  ;  you  increase  the  army  of  idleness  and  misery.”  I  said  to  them : 
“This  is  a  dangerous  condition  of  things  to  have  in  a  country.  It  is  liable 
to  lead  to  violence.  It  will  drive  the  workers  into  revolution.  The  eight 
hour  demand  is  a  measure  which  is  in  the  interest  of  humanity,  in  the  in¬ 
terest  of  peace,  in  the  interest  of  prosperity  and  public  order.” 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


75 


Now,  your  honor,  can  you  take  your  comments  there  and  say  that  we 
had  other  motives  and  ulterior  motives?  Your  impression  is  derived  from 
the  inflammatory  sections  and  articles  selected  by  the  prosecution  for  your 
honor  to  read.  I  think  I  know  what  my  motives  were,  and  I  am  stating 
them  deliberately  and  fairly  and  honestly,  leaving  you  to  judge  whether  or 
not  I  am  telling  the  truth.  You  say  that  “the  different  papers  and  the 
speeches  furnish  direct  contradiction  to  the  arguments  of  the  counsel  for  the 
defense  that  we  proposed  to  resort  to  arms  only  in  the  case  of  unlawful  at¬ 
tacks  of  the  police.”  Why,  the  very  article  that  you  quote  in  the  Alarm — a 
copy  of  which  I  have  not,  but  which  I  would  like  to  see,  calling  the  American 
Group  to  assemble  for  the  purpose  of  considering  military  matters  and  mili¬ 
tary  organization,  states  specifically  that  the  purpose  and  object  is  to  take  in¬ 
to  consideration  measures  of  defense  against  unlawful  and  unconstitutional 
attacks  of  the  police.  That  identical  article  shows  it.  You  forget  surely 
that  fact  when  you  made  this  observation ;  and  I  defy  any  one  to  show,  in  a 
speech  that  is  susceptible  of  proof,  by  proof,  that  I  have  ever  said  aught 
by  word  of  mouth  or  by  written  article  except  in  self-defense.  Does  not  the 
constitution  of  the  country,  under  whose  flag  myself  and  my  forefathers 
were  born  for  the  last  260  years,  provide  that  protection,  and  give  me,  their 
descendant,  that  right?  Does  not  the  constitution  say  that  I,  as  an  American, 
have  a  right  to  keep  and  to  bear  arms?  I  stand  upon  that  right.  Let  me 
sec  if  this  court  will  deprive  me  of  it. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  another  point  here.  For  some  of  these 
articles  that  appear  in  the  Alarm,  I  am  no  more  responsible  than  is  the  editor 
of  any  other  paper.  And  I  did  not  write  everything  in  the  Alarm,  and  it 
might  be  possible  that  there  were  some  things  in  that  paper  which  I  am  not 
ready  to  endorse.  I  am  frank  to  admit  that  such  is  the  case.  I  suppose  you 
could  scarcely  find  an  editor  of  a  paper  in  the  world,  but  what  could  con¬ 
scientiously  say  the  same  thing.  Now,  am  I  to  be  dragged  up  here  and  exe¬ 
cuted  for  the  utterances  and  the  writings  of  other  men,  even  though  they 
were  published  in  the  columns  of  a  paper  of  which  I  was  the  editor?  Your 
honor,  you  must  remember  that  the  Alarm  was  a  labor  paper,  published  by 
the  International  Working  People’s  Association,  belonging  to  that  body.  I 
was  elected  its  editor  by  the  organization,  and,  as  labor  editors  generally 
are,  I  was  handsomely  paid.  I  had  saw-dust  pudding  as  a  general  thing  for 
dinner.  My  salary  was  eight  dollars  a  week,  and  I  have  received  that  salary 
as  editor  of  the  Alarm  for  over  two  years  and  a  half — $8  a  week!  I  was 
paid  by  the  association.  It  stands  upon  the  books.  Go  down  to  the  office 
and  consult  the  business  manager.  Look  over  the  record  in  the  book  and 
it  will  show  you  that  A.  R.  Parsons  received  $8  a  week  as  editor  of  the 
Alarm  for  over  two  years  and  a  half.  This  paper  belonged  to  the  organiza¬ 
tion.  It  was  theirs.  They  sent  in  their  articles — Tom,  Dick  and  Harry; 
everybody  wanted  to  have  something  to  say,  and  I  had  no  right  to  shut  off 
anybody’s  complaint.  The  Alarm  was  a  labor  paper,  and  it  was  specifically 
published  for  the  purpose  of  allowing  every  human  being  who  had  a  wrong 
to  ventilate  it ;  to  give  every  human  being  who  wore  the  chains  of  monopoly 
an  opportunity  to  clank  those  chains  in  the  columns  of  the  Alarm.  It  was  a 
free  press  organ.  It  was  a  free  speech  newspaper. 

But  your  honor  says :  “Oh,  well,  Parsons,  your  own  language,  your  own 
words,  your  own  statements  at  these  meetings — what  you  said.”  Well,  pos¬ 
sibly  I  have  said  some  foolish  things.  Who  has  not?  As  a  public  speaker 
probably  I  have  uttered  some  wild  and  possibly  incoherent  assertions.  Who, 
as  a  public  speaker,  has  not  done  so?  Now,  consider  for  a  moment.  Sup¬ 
pose,  as  is  now  the  case  with  me,  here  I  see  little  children  suffering,  men 
and  women  starving.  There  I  see  others  rolling  in  luxury  and  wealth  and 
opulence,  out  of  the  unpaid-for  labor  of  the  laborers.  I  am  conscious  of 
this  fact.  I  see  the  streets  of  Chicago,  as  was  the  case  last  winter,  filled 
with  30,000  men  in  compulsory  idleness ;  destitution,  misery  and  want  upon 


76 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


every  hand.  I  see  this  thing.  Then  on  the  other  hand  I  see  the  First  Regi¬ 
ment  out  in  a  street-riot  drill,  and  reading  the  papers  the  next  morning  de¬ 
scribing  the  affair,  I  am  told  by  the  editor  of  the  capitalistic  newspaper  that 
the  First  Regiment  is  out  practicing  a  street-riot  drill  for  the  purpose  of 
mowing  down  these  wretches  when  they  come  out  of  their  holes  that  the 
prosecution  talks  about  here  in  this  case;  that  the  working  people  are  to  be 
slaughtered  in  cold  blood,  and  that  men  are  drilling  upon  the  streets  of  the 
cities  of  America  to  butcher  their  fellowmen  when  they  demand  the  right 
to  work  and  partake  of  the  fruits  of  their  labor.  Seeing  these  things,  over¬ 
whelmed  as  it  were  with  indignation  and  pity,  my  heart  speaks.  May  I  not 
say  some  things  then  that  I  would  not  in  cooler  moments?  Are  not  such 
outrageous  things  calculated  to  arouse  the  bitterest  denunciations? 

Your  honor,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  some  of  the  reasons  which  I 
propose  here  today  to  offer  in  justification  of  the  words  and  utterances,  and 
the  acts,  whatever  they  maj?  have  been,  of  myself,  or  my  colleagues,  on  the 
question  of  force,  on  the  question  of  arms,  and  on  the  question  of  dynamite. 
Now,  going  back  to  1877,  what  do  we  find?  The  railroad  strikes  occurred. 
During  the  conflict  of  that  year  the  following  utterances  were  made  by  heavy 
employers  and  manufacturers  and  monopolists  in  this  country.  I  will  give 
you  a  few  samples.  This,  mark  you,  is  published  in  the  Alarm  of  November 
8,  1884,  but  the  same  extracts  have  been  kept  standing  in  the  labor  papers, 
published  by  the  Knights  of  Labor,  the  Trades  Unions,  and  the  Socialists  of 
the  United  States,  there  being  somewhere  over  three  hundred  of  these  papers. 
Now  listen:  “Give  them  (the  strikers)  a  rifle  diet  for  a  few  days,  and  see 
how  they  like  that  kind  of  bread,”  said  Tom  Scott,  president  of  the  Penn¬ 
sylvania  Central  Railway,  addressing  Gov.  Hartranft  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
calling  upon  him  to  send  his  army  of  militiamen  to  Pittsburg,  to  put  down 
his  railroad  strikers,  who  were  asking  for  a  little  more  pay,  and  some  of 
them  asking  for  pay  enough  to  get  their  hungry  children  bread.  His  answer 
is,  “Give  them  a  rifle  diet  for  a  few  days  and  see  how  they  like  that  kind 
of  bread.”  Mark  you,  this  was  in  1877.  “If  the  workingmen  had  no  vote 
they  might  be  more  amenable  to  the  teachings  of  the  times,”  says  the  Indian¬ 
apolis  News.  “There  is  too  much  freedom  in  this  country  instead  of  too 
little,”  says  the  Indianapolis  Journal.  In  1878,  the  New  York  Tribune,  in  an 
editorial  upon  strikes,  used  these  words :  “These  brutal  strikers  or  creatures 
can  understand  no  other  meaning  than  that  of  force,  and  ought  to  have 
enough  of  it  to  be  remembered  among  them  for  many  generations.”  “Hand 
grenades  should  be  thrown  among  these  Union  sailors  who  are  striving  to 
obtain  higher  wages  and  less  hours.  By  such  treatment  they  would  be  taught 
a  valuable  lesson,  and  other  strikers  could  take  warning  from  their  fate,” 
said  the  Chicago  Times.  “It  is  very  well  to  relieve  real  distress  wherever 
it  exists,  whether  in  the  city  or  in  the  country,  but  the  best  meal  that  can 
be  given  a  ragged  tramp  is  a  leaden  one,  and  it  should  be  supplied  in  suf¬ 
ficient  quantities  to  satisfy  the  most  voracious  appetite,”  New  York  Herald, 
1878.  “The  American  laborer  must  make  up  his  mind  to  be  not  so  much 
better  than  the  European  laborer.  He  must  be  contented  to  work  for  less 
wages  and  must  be  satisfied  with  that  station  in  life  to  which  it  has  pleased 
God  to  call  him.”  The  New  York  World  uttered  these  sentiments  in  1878. 

I  could  go  through  the  whole  gamut  of  the  monopolistic  press  of  America 
and  show  similar  expressions  of  sentiment.  These  sentiments  were  used 
against  strikers,  against  men  who  were  simply  seeking  to  improve  their  con¬ 
dition.  They  only  asked  for  less  hours  of  labor  and  for  increased  pay.  These 
are  the  bloody,  bitter  words  of  these  papers.  Now,  what  follows?  Tt  is  the 
experience  nowadays  and  has  been  since  that  time,  when  workingmen  strike, 
to  call  out  the  militia.  That  has  been  the  practice  since  these  utterances 
and  declarations  in  1878,  growing  out  of  the  great  railroad  strike.  It  has 
become  the  custom  in  America  to  call  out  the  militia  if  there  is  a  strike,  or 
even  if  there  is  one  contemplated.  Why,  look  at  the  packing  houses  in  the 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


77 


city  of  Chicago.  Only  yesterday  the  packing  house  bosses,  who  employ 
25,000  men,  called  for  an  army  of  Pinkerton  men  to  go  down  there,  and 
advertised  for  them  to  come.  That  was  before  there  was  a  strike  in  mere 
contemplation  cf  it,  your  honor.  This  in  America  the  United  States ! 
Why,  is  it  surprising  that  the  working  people  should  feel  indignant  about 
these  things  and  say  to  Mr.  Gould  or  to  Tom  Scott:  “If  you  are  going  to 
give  us  a  rifle  diet  instead  of  a  bread  diet,  as  was  asked  of  Christ,  when 
we  ask  you  for  bread  you  give  us  a  stone,  and  not  only  give  us  a  stone, 
but  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet  compel  us  to  swallow  it,  where  is  the  con¬ 
stitutional  right  of  resistance  to  these  outrages?’  If  I  am  to  be  deprived  of 
my  rights  of  defense  against  the  administration  of  a  rifle  diet,  and  strych¬ 
nine  put  upon  my  bread  and  food,  which  was  advocated  by  the  Chicago 
Tribune  when  it  said  that,  when  tramps  come  around  in  the  neighborhood, 
^ive  them  a  slice  of  bread  with  strychnine  upon  it,  and  other  tramps  will 
taVp  warning  and  keep  out  of  the  neighborhood ;  if  I  am  to  be  deprived 
of  my  right,  what  shall  I  do?  Are  not  such  expressions  as  this  calculated 
to  exasperate  men?  Is  there  no  justification  for  that  which  you  denomi¬ 
nate  violent  speeches?  Did  not  these  monopolists  bring  about  the  inception 
of  this  language?  Did  they  not  originate  it?  Were  they  not  the  first  to 
say:  “Throw  dynamite  bombs  amnog  the  strikers,  and  thereby  make  a 

warning  to  others?”  Was  it  not  Tom  Scott  who  first  said,  “Give  them  a 
rifle  diet?”  Wa^  it  not  the  Tribune  which  first  said,  “Give  them  strych¬ 
nine?”  And  they  have  done  it.  Since  that  time  they  have  administered  a 
rifle  diet;  they  have  administered  strychnine.  They  have  thrown  hand 
grenades,  and  the  h.ind  grenade  upon  the  Haymarket  on  the  night  of  the 
4th  of  May  was  thrown  by  the  hand  of  a  monopolist  conspirator  sent  from 
the  city  of  New  York  for  that  specific  purpose,  to  break  up  the  eight  hour 
movement  and  bring  these  men  to  the  gallows  in  this  court.  Your  honor, 
we  are  the  victims  of  the  foulest  and  blackest  conspiracy  that  ever  dis¬ 
graced  the  annals  of  time.  If  these  men  will  preach  these  things;  if  the 
Tribune  thinks  that  strychnine  is  good  enough  for  us;  if  the  Times  thinks 
that  hand  grenades  are  good  enough  for  us,  why  have  we  not  got  a  right 
to  say  they  will  use  it?  They  say  they  believe  in  it.  They  say  they  think 
it.  What  right  have  we  to  say  that  they  will  not  hire  some  mercenary  to 
carry  out  what  they  think,  and  put  into  practice  that  which  they  believe? 

In  this  connection  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  way  armed  men, 
militiamen  and  Pinkerton’s  private  army  are  used  against  workingmen, 
strikers;  the  way  they  are  used  to  shoot  them,  to  arrest  them,  to  put  up  jobs 
on  them  and  carry  them  out.  In  the  Alarm  of  Oct.  17,  1885,  there  is  printed 
the  following:  “Pinkerton’s  Army.  They  issue  a  Secret  Circular  Offering 
Their  Services  to  Capitalists  for  the  Suppression  of  Strikers.  The  secretary 
of  the  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly  sends  us  the  fol¬ 
lowing  note:  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  October  6,  1885.  Editor  of  the  Alarm. 
Dear  Sir:  Please  pay  your  respects  to  the  Pinkerton  pups  for  their  ex¬ 
treme  kindness  to  labor.  Try  to  have  the  government  of  your  city  do  away 
with  its  metropolitan  police  and  employ  Pinkerton  protectors.”  (Of  course 
this  is  sarcastic.)  **The  inclosed  circular  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Minne¬ 
apolis  Trades  Assembly,  which  thought  it  not  out  of  place  to  pass  it  around. 
Please  insert  it  in  your  paper.  Yours  fraternally,  T.  W.  Brosnan.”  That 
letter  is  under  the  seal  of  the  Trade  and  Labor  Assembly  of  the  city  of 
Minneapolis,  Minn.  Then  follows  the  circular.  Then,  after  referring  to  the 
services  rendered  the  capitalists,  corporations,  and  monopolists  during  the 
strikes  in  all  parts  of  the  country  during  the  past  year,  the  circular  closes 
with  the  following  paragraphs,  which  we  give  in  full  as  illustrative  of  the 
designs  of  these  secret  enemies  upon  organized  labor.  Let  every  working¬ 
man  ponder  over  the  avowed  purposes  of  these  armies  of  thugs.  It  says: 
“The  Pinkerton  Protective  Patrol  is  connected  with  Pinkerton’s  National 
Detective  Agency,  and  is  under  the  same  management.  Corporations  or  in- 


78 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


dividuals  desirous  of  ascertaining  the  feelings  of  their  employees,  whether 
they  are  likely  to  engage  in  strikes  or  are  joining  any  secret  labor  organiza¬ 
tions,  such  as  the  Knights  of  Labor,  with  a  view  of  compelling  terms  from 
corporations  or  employers,  can  obtain  upon  application  to  the  superintendent 
of  either  of  the  offices  a  detective  suitable  to  associate  with  their  employees 
and  obtain  this  information.”  This  circular  continues :  “At  this  time, 
when  there  is  so  much  dissatisfaction  among  the  labor  classes,  and  secret 
labor  societies  are  organizing  throughout  the  United  States,  we  suggest 
whether  it  would  not  be  well  for  railroad  companies  and  other  corporations, 
as  well  as  individuals  who  are  extensive  employers,  to  keep  a  close  watch 
for  designing  men  among  their  own  employees,  who,  in  the  interest  of  secret 
labor  societies,  are  influencing  their  employees  to  join  these  organizations 
and  eventually  cause  a  strike.  It  is  frequently  the  case  that,  by  taking  a 
matter  of  this  kind  in  time,  and  discovering  the  ring-leaders,  and  dealing 
promptly  with  them” — “discovering  the  ring-leaders,”  mark  you,  “and  deah'-ig 
promptly  with  them,  serious  trouble  may  be  avoided  in  the  future,  ^ours 
respectfully,  William  A.  Pinkerton,  General  Superintendent  Western  Agency, 
Chicago ;  Robert  A.  Pinkerton,  General  Superintendent  Eastern  Division, 
New  York.” 

Now,  here  is  a  concern,  an  institution  which  organizes  a  private  army. 
This  private  army  is  at  the  command  and  control  of  those  who  grind  the 
faces  of  the  poor,  who  keep  wages  down  to  the  starvation  point.  This  pri¬ 
vate  army  can  be  shipped  to  the  place  where  they  are  waited.  Now  it  goes 
to  the  Hocking  Valley  to  subjugate  the  starving  miners;  then  it  is  carried 
across  the  plains  to  Nebraska  to  shoot  the  striking  miners  in  that  region. 
Then  it  is  carried  to  the  east  to  stop  the  strike  of  the  factory  operatives 
and  put  them  down.  The  army  moves  about  to  and  fro  all  over  the  country, 
sneaks  into  the  labor  organizations,  worms  itself  into  these  labor  societies, 
finds  out,  as  it  says,  who  the  ring-leaders  are  and  deals  promptly  with  them. 
“Promptly,”  your  honor,  “with  them.”  Now,  what  does  that  mean?  It 
means  this :  that  some  workingman  who  has  got  the  spirit  of  a  man  in  his 
organization,  who  gets  up  and  speaks  out  his  sentiments,  protests,  you  know, 
objects,  won’t  have  it,  don’t  like  these  indignities  and  says  so,  is  set  down 
as  a  ring-leader,  and  these  spies  go  to  work  and  put  up  a  job  on  him.  If 
they  cannot  aggravate  him  and  make  him,  as  the  New  York  Tribune  says, 
violate  the  law  so  they  can  get  hold  of  him,  they  go  to  work  and  put  up  a 
scheme  on  him,  and  concoct  a  conspiracy  that  will  bring  him  into  court. 
When  he  is  brought  into  court  he  is  a  wage  slave ;  he  has  no  friends,  he  has 
got  no  money — who  is  he'*  Why,  he  stands  here  at  the  bar  like  a  culprit. 
He  has  neither  position,  wealth,  honor,  nor  friends  to  defend  him.  What 
is  the  result?  Why,  sixty  days  at  the  Bridewell  or  a  year  in  the  county  jail. 
The  matter  is  dismissed  with  a  wave  of  the  hand.  The  bailiff  carries  the 
ring-leader  out.  The  strike  is  suppressed.  Monopoly  triumphs  and  the 
Pinkertons  have  performed  the  work  for  which  they  receive  their  pay.  Now, 
it  was  these  things  that  caused  the  American  Group  to  take  an  exceeding 
interest  in  this  manner  of  treatment  on  the  part  of  the  corporations  and 
monopolies  of  the  country,  and  we  became  indignant  about  it.  We  expos¬ 
tulated,  we  denounced  it.  Could  we  do  otherwise?  We  are  a  part  and  par¬ 
cel  of  the  miseries  brought  about  by  this  condition  of  things.  Could  we  do 
otherwise  than  expostulate  and  object  to  it  and  resent  it?  Now,  to  illus¬ 
trate  what  we  did,  I  will  read  to  you  from  the  Alarm ,  December  12,  1885, 
the  proceedings  of  the  American  Group,  of  which  I  was  a  member,  as  a 
sample.  I  being  present  at  that  meeting,  and  that  meeting  being  reported 
in  this  paper,  1  hold  that  this  report  of  the  meeting,  being  put  into  the 
Alarm  at  that  time,  is  worthy  of  your  credence  and  respect,  as  showing 
what  our  attitude  was  upon  the  question  of  force  and  of  arms  and  of 
dynamite.  The  article  is  headed  “Street  Riot  Drill.  Mass  Meeting  of 
Working  People  HeM  at  106  East  Randolph  Street”  This  was  the  regular 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


79 


hall  and  place  of  meeting.  The  article  reads :  “A  large  mass  meeting  of 
workingmen  and  women  was  held  by  the  American  Group  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  last  Wednesday  evening  at  their  hall,  106  East  Randolph  street. 
The  subject  under  discussion  was  the  street-riot  drill  of  the  First  Regiment 
on  Thanksgiving  day.  William  Holmes  presided.  The  principal  speaker 
of  the  evening  was  Mrs.  Lucy  E.  Parsons.  She  began  by  saying  that  the 
founders  of  this  republic,  whose  motto  was  that  every  human  being  was 
by  nature  entitled  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  would  turn 
in  their  graves  if  they  could  read  and  know  that  a  great  street-riot  drill 
was  now  being  practiced  in  times  of  peace.  ‘Let  us,’  said  she,  ‘examine  into 
this  matter  and  ascertain,  if  we  can,  what  this  street-riot  drill  of  the  military 
is  for.  Certainly  not  for  the  purpose  of  fighting  enemies  from  without ; 
not  for  a  foreign  foe,  for  if  this  was  the  case  we  would  be  massing  our 
armies  on  the  sea-coast.  Then  it  must  be  for  our  enemies  within.  Now, 
then,  do  a  contented,  prosperous,  and  happy  people  leave  their  avocations 
and  go  out  upon  the  streets  to  riot?  Do  young  men  and  maidens  who  are 
marrying  and  given  in  marriage  forsake  the  peaceful  paths  of  life  to  become 
a  riotous  mob?  Then  who  is  this  street-riot  drill  for?  For  whom  is  it 
intended?  Who  is  to  be  shot?  When  the  tramp  of  the  military  is  heard, 
and  grape  and  canister  are  sweeping  four  streets  at  a  time,  as  is  contem¬ 
plated  by  this  new-fangled  drill  which  was  so  graphically  described  in  the 
capitalistic  paper  which  gave  an  account  of  it,  it  is  certainly  not  for  the 
purpose  of  shooting  down  the  bourgeoisie,  the  wealthy,  because  this  same 
press  makes  a  stirring  appeal  to  them  to  contribute  liberally  to  a  military 
fund  to  put  them  on  a  good  footing  and  make  the  militia  twice  as  strong 
as  it  is  at  present,  because  their  services  would  soon  be  needed  to  shoot 
down  the  mob/  The  speaker  then  read  an  extract  from  a  capitalistic  ac¬ 
count  of  the  street-riot  drill  on  Thanksgiving  day.” 

Your  honor,  this  meeting  was  held  the  week  following  Thanksgiving 
day,  and  the  drill  took  place  on  Thanksgiving  day.  This  article,  which  is  a 
description  of  the  drill  copied  from  a  capitalistic  paper,  reads  as  follows: 
“As  a  conclusion  the  divisions  were  drawn  up  in  line  of  battle  and  there 
was  more  firing  by  companies,  by  file  and  by  battalion.  The  drill  was  cred¬ 
itable  to  the  regiment,  and  the  First  will  do  excellent  service  in  the  streets 
in  case  of  necessity.  Opportunities,  however,  are  needed  for  rifle  practice, 
and  Colonel  Knox  is  anxious  to  have  a  range  established  as  soon  as  pos¬ 
sible.  Instead  of  400  members,  the  regiment  should  have  800  members  on 
its  rolls.  Business  men  should  take  more  interest  in  the  organization  and 
help  put  it  in  the  best  possible  condition  to  cope  with  a  mob,  for  there  may 
be  need  for  its  service  at  no  distant  day.”  That  article  appeared  either  in 
the  Times  or  Tribune  of  the  next  day.  I  don’t  know  which.  The  speaker 
says :  “What  must  be  the  thought  of  the  oppressed  in  foreign  lands  when 
they  hear  the  tramp  of  the  militia  beneath  the  folds  of  the  stars  and  stripes? 
They  who  first  hung  this  flag  to  the  breeze,  proclaimed  that  beneath  its 
folds  the  oppressed  of  all  lands  would  find  a  refuge  and  a  haven  and  pro¬ 
tection  against  the  despotism  of  all  lands.  Is  this  the  case  today  when  the 
counter-tramp  of  two  millions  of  homeless  wanderers  is  heard  throughout! 
the  land  of  America ;  men  strong  and  able  and  anxious  and  willing  to  work, 
that  they  may  purchase  for  themselves  and  their  families  food ;  when  the 
cry  of  discontent  is  heard  from  the  working  classes  everywhere,  and  they 
refuse  longer  to  starve,  and  peaceably  accept  a  rifle  diet  and  die  in  misery 
according  to  law,  and  order  is  enforced  by  this  military  drill?  Is  this  mili¬ 
tary  drill  for  the  purpose  of  sweeping  them  down  as  a  mob  with  grape  and 
canister  upon  the  street?”  This  is  the  language  of  the  speaker  at  the  meet¬ 
ing:  “We  working  people  hear  these  ominous  rumblings,  which  create  in¬ 
quiry  as  to  their  origin.  A  few  years  ago  we  heard  nothing  of  this  kind ; 
but  great  changes  have  taken  place  during  the  past  generation.  Charles 
Dickens,  who  visited  America  forty  years  ago,  said  that  what  surprised  him 


80 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


most  was  the  general  prosperity  and  equality  of  all  people,  and  that  a 
beggar  upon  the  streets  of  Boston  would  create  as  much  consternation  as  an 
angel  with  a  flaming  sword.  What  of  Boston  today?  Last  winter,  said 
a  correspondent  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  writing  from  that  city,  30,000  per¬ 
sons  were  destitute,  and  there  were  whole  streets  of  tenement  houses  where 
the  possession  of  a  cooking  stove  was  regarded  as  a  badge  of  aristocracy, 
the  holes  of  which  were  rented  to  other  less  wealthy  neighbors  for  a  few 
pennies  per  hour. 

“So,  too,  with  New  York,  Chicago  and  every  other  industrial  center  in 
this  broad  land.  Why  is  this?  Have  we  had  a  famine?  Has  nature  refused 
to  yield  her  harvest?  These  are  grave  and  serious  questions  for  us,  the 
producers  and  sufferers,  to  consider,  at  least.  Take  a  glance  at  the  wealth 
of  this  country.  In  the  past  twenty  years  it  has  increased  over  twenty 
billions  of  dollars.  Into  whose  hands  has  this  wealth  found  its  way?  Cer¬ 
tainly  not  the  hands  of  the  producers,  for  if  it  had  there  would  be  no  need 
for  street-riot  drills.  This  country  has  a  population  of  55,000,000,  and  a 
statistical  compilation  shows  that  there  are  in  the  cities  of  New  York,  Phila¬ 
delphia  and  Boston  twenty  men  who  own  as  their  private  property  over 
$750,000,000,  or  about  one-twenty-sixth  of  the  entire  increase  which  was 
produced  by  the  labor  of  the  working  class,  these  twenty  individuals  being 
as  one  in  three  millions.  In  twenty  years  these  profit-mongers  have  fleeced 
the  people  of  the  enormous  sum  of  $750,000,000,  and  only  three  cities  and 
twenty  robbers  heard  from.  A  government  that  protects  this  plundering  of 
the  people,  a  government  which  permits  the  people  to  be  degraded  and 
brought  to  misery  in  this  manner  is  a  fraud  upon  the  face  of  it,  no  matter 
under  what  name  it  is  called,  or  what  flag  floats  over  it;  whether  it  be  a 
republic  or  a  monarchy,  or  an  empire,”  said  the  speaker.  “The  American 
flag  protects  as  much  economic  despotism  as  any  other  flag  on  the  face 
of  the  earth  today  to  the  ratio  of  population.  This  being  the  case,  of  what 
does  the  boasted  freedom  of  the  American  workingmen  consist?  Our 
fathers  used  to  sing, 

‘Come  along-,  come  along;  make  no  delay; 

Come  from  every  nation,  come  from  every  way; 

Come  along,  come  along;  don’t  be  alarmed — 

Uncle  Sam  is  rich  enough  to  give  us  all  a  farm.’ 

The  stars  and  stripes  in  those  days  floated  upon  every  water  as  the  emblem 
of  the  free,  but  today  it  obeys  only  the  command,  and  has  become  the 
ensign  of  monopoly  and  of  corporations,  of  those  who  grind  the  faces  of 
the  poor  and  rob  and  enslave  the  laborer.  Could  Russia  do  more  than  drill 
in  its  streets  to  kill  the  people?  But  alas!  Americans  creep  and  crawl  at 
the  foot  of  wealth  and  adore  the  golden  calf.  Can  a  man  amass  millions 
without  despoiling  the  labor  of  others?  We  all  know  he  cannot.  American 
workingmen  seem  to  be  degenerating.  They  do  not  seem  to  understand 
what  liberty  and  freedom  really  consist  of.  They  shout  themselves  hoarse 
on  election  day — for  what?  For  the  miserable  privilege  of  choosing  their 
master;  which  man  shall  be  their  boss  and  rule  over  them;  for  the  privi¬ 
lege  of  choosing  just  who  are  the  bosses  and  who  shall  govern  them.  Great 
privilege !  These  Americans — sovereigns — millions  of  them  do  not  know 
where  they  could  get  a  bed  or  a  supper.  Your  ballot — what  is  it  good  for? 
Can  a  man  vote  himself  bread,  or  clothes,  or  shelter,  or  work?  In  what 
does  American  wage  slaves’  freedom  consist?  The  poor  are  the  slaves  of 
the  rich  everywhere.  The  ballot  is  neither  a  protection  against  hunger  nor 
against  the  bullets  of  the  military.  Bread  is  freedom ;  freedom  bread.  The 
ballot  is  no  protection  against  the  bullets  of  those  who  are  practicing  the 
street-riot  drills  in  Chicago.  The  ballot  is  worthless  to  the  industrial  slave 
under  these  conditions.  The  palaces  of  the  rich  overshadow  the  homes  or 
huts  of  the  poor,  and  we  say  with  Victor  Hugo,  that  the  paradise  of  the 
rich  is  made  out  of  the  hells  of  the  poor.  The  whole  force  of  the  organized 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


81 


power  of  the  government  is  thrown  against  the  workers,  whom  the  so- 
called  better  class  denominates  a  mob.  Now,  when  the  workers  of  America 
refuse  to  starve  according  to  law  and  order,  and  when  they  begin  to  think 
and  act,  why,  the  street  drill  begins.  The  enslavers  of  labor  see  the  coming 
storm.  They  are  deteonined,  cost  what  it  may,  to  drill  these  people  and 
make  them  their  slaves  by  holding  in  their  possession  the  means  of  life  as 
their  property,  and  thus  enslave  the  producers.  Workingmen — we  mean 
women,  too — arise !  Prepare  to  make  and  determine  successfully  to  estab¬ 
lish  the  right  to  live  and  partake  of  the  bounties  to  which  all  are  equally 
entitled.  Agitate,  organize,  prepare  to  defend  your  life,  your  liberty,  your 
happiness  against  the  murderers  who  are  practicing  the  street  riot  drill  on 
Thanksgiving  day. 

“  ’Tis  the  shame  of  the  land  that  the  earnings  of  toil 
Should  gorge  the  god  Mammon,  the  tyrant,  the  spoiler. 

Every  foot  has  a  logical  right  to  the  soil, 

And  the  product  of  toil  is  the  meed  of  the  toiler. 

“The  hands  that  disdain 
Honest  industry’s  stain 

Have  no  share  in  its  honor,  no  right  to  its  gain. 

And  the  falsehood  of  Wealth  over  Worth  shall  not  be 

In  ‘the  home  of  the  brave  and  the  land  of  the  free.’ 

“Short  addresses  were  made  by  comrades  Fielden,  Dr.  Taylor,  William 
Snyder,  William  Holmes,  and  others.  This  concluded  the  meeting,  after 
criticisms.” 

Now,  I  challenge  your  honor,  to  find  a  sentence  or  an  utterance  in  that 
meeting — and  that  is  one  of  the  fullest  reported  of  the  many  meetings  held 
by  the  American  Group  for  public  discussion  of  such  matters  as  the  Thanks¬ 
giving  drill  of  the  First  Regiment — I  challenge  you  to  find  a  single  word 
or  utterance  there  that  is  unlawful,  that  is  contrary  to  the  constitution,  or 
that  is  in  violation  of  free  speech,  or  that  is  in  violation  of  free  press,  or 
that  is  in  violation  of  public  assembly  or  of  the  right  of  self-defense.  And 
that  is  our  position,  and  has  been  all  the  while.  Imagine  for  a  moment,  the 
First  Regiment  practicing  the  street-riot  drill  as  it  was  described — learning 
how  to  sweep  four  streets  from  the  four  corners  at  once.  Who?  The 
Tribune  and  Times  say  “the  mob.”  Who  are  the  mob?  Why,  dissatisfied 
people,  dissatisfied  workingmen  and  women ;  people  who  are  working  for 
starvation  wages,  people  who  are  on  a  strike  for  better  pay — these  are 
the  mob.  They  are  always  the  mob.  That  is  what  the  riot  drill  is  for. 
Suppose  a  case  like  that  occurs.  The  First  Regiment  is  out  with  a  thousand 
men  armed  with  the  latest  improved  Winchester  rifles.  Here  are  the  mobs ; 
here  are  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  the  Trades  Unions,  and  all  of  the 
organizations  without  arms.  They  have  no  treasury,  and  a  Winchester  rifle 
costs  $18.  They  cannot  purchase  those  things.  We  cannot  organize  an 
army.  It  takes  capital  to  organize  an  army.  It  takes  as  much  money  to 
organize  an  army  as  to  organize  industry,  or  to  build  railroads ;  therefore, 
it  is  impossible  for  the  working  classes  to  organize  and  buy  Winchester 
rifles.  What  can  they  do?  What  must  they  do?  Your  honor,  the  dyna¬ 
mite  bomb,  I  am  told,  costs  six  cents.  It  can  be  made  by  anybody.  The 
Winchester  rifle  costs  $18.  That  is  the  difference.  Am  I  to  be  blamed 
for  that?  Am  I  to  be  hanged  for  saying  this?  Am  I  to  be  destroyed 
for  this?  What  have  I  done?  Go,  dig  up  the  ashes  of  the  man  who  in¬ 
vented  this  thing.  Find  his  ashes  and  scatter  them  to  the  winds,  because 
he  gave  this  power  to  the  world.  It  was  not  I.  General  Sheridan — he  is 
the  commander  in  chief  of  the  United  States  army,  and  in  his  report  to 
the  president  and  congress  two  years  ago  he  had  occasion  to  speak  of  the 
possible  labor  trouble  that  may  occur  in  the  country,  and  what  did  he  say? 
In  this  report  he  says  that  dynamite  was  a  lately  discovered  article  of  tre¬ 
mendous  power,  and  such  was  its  nature  that  people  could  carry  it  around 


82 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


in  the  pockets  of  their  clothing  with  perfect  safety  to  themselves,  and  by 
means  of  it  they  could  destroy  whole  cities  and  whole  armies.  This  was 
General  Sheridan.  That  is  what  he  said.  We  quoted  that  language  and 
referred  to  it.  I  want  to  say  another  word  about  dynamite  before  I  pass 
on  to  something  else.  I  am  called  a  dynamiter  by  the  prosecution  here. 
Why?  Did  I  ever  use  dynamite?  No.  Did  I  ever  have  any?  No.  Do  I 
know  anything  about  dynamite  bombs?  No.  Why,  then,  am  I  called  a 
dynamiter?  Listen,  and  I  will  tell  you.'  Gunpowder  in  the  fifteenth  cen¬ 
tury  marked  an  era  in  the  world’s  history.  It  was  the  downfall  of  the  mail 
armor  of  the  knight,  the  freebooter,  and  the  robber  of  that  period.  It 
enabled  the  victims  of  these  highway  robbers  to  stand  off  at  a  distance  in  a 
safe  place  and  defend  themselves  by  the  use  of  gunpowder,  and  make  a 
ball  enter  and  pierce  into  the  flesh  of  their  robbers  and  destroyers.  Gun¬ 
powder  came  as  a  democratic  instrument.  It  came  as  a  republican  insti¬ 
tution,  and  the  effect  was  that  it  immediately  began  to  equalize  and  bring 
about  an  equilibrium  of  power.  There  was  less  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
nobility  after  that;  less  power  in  the  hands  of  the  king;  less  power  in  the 
hands  of  those  who  would  plunder  and  degrade  and  destroy  the  people  after 
that. 

So  today  dynamite  comes  as  the  emancipator  of  man  from  the  domi¬ 
nation  and  enslavement  of  his  fellowman.  [The  judge  showed  symptoms 
of  impatience.]  Bear  with  me  now.  Dynamite  is  the  diffusion  of  power. 
It  is  democratic;  it  makes  everybody  equal.  General  Sheridan  says  “arms 
are  worthless.”  They  are  worthless  in  the  presence  of  this  instrument. 
Nothing  can  meet  it.  The  Pinkertons,  the  police,  the  militia,  are  absolutely 
worthless  in  the  presence  of  dynamite.  They  can  do  nothing  with  the  peo¬ 
ple  at  all.  It  is  the  equilibrium.  It  is  the  annihilator.  It  is  the  dissemi¬ 
nator  of  power.  It  is  the  downfall  of  oppression.  It  is  the  abolition  of 
authority ;  it  is  the  dawn  of  peace ;  it  is  the  end  of  war,  because  war  cannot 
exist  unless  there  is  somebody  to  make  war  upon,  and  dynamite  makes  that 
unsafe,  undesirable,  and  absolutely  impossible.  It  is  a  peace-maker;  it  is 
man’s  best  and  last  friend ;  it  emancipates  the  world  from  the  domineering 
of  the  few  over  the  many,  because  all  government,  in  the  last  resort,  is 
violence ;  all  law,  in  the  last  resort,  is  force.  Everything  is  based  upon 
force.  Force  is  the  law  of  the  universe;  force  is  the  law  of  nature,  and 
this  newly  discovered  force  makes  all  men  equal  and  therefore  free.  It  is 
idle  to  talk  of  rights  when  one  does  not  possess  the  power  to  enforce  them. 
Science  has  now  given  every  human  being  that  power.  It  is  proposed  by 
the  prosecution  here  to  take  me  by  force  and  strangle  me  on  the  gallows 
for  these  things  I  have  said,  for  these  expressions.  Now,  force  is  the  last 
resort  of  tyrants;  it  is  the  last  resort  of  despots  and  of  oppressors,  and  he 
who  would  strangle  another  because  that  other  does  not  believe  as  he 
would  have  him,  he  who  will  destroy  another  because  that  other  will  not 
do  as  he  says,  that  man  is  a  despot  and  a  tyrant  and  unworthy  to  live. 

Now,  I  speak  plainly.  Does  it  follow,  because  I  hold  these  views  that 
I  committed  this  act  at  the  Haymarket?  Does  that  follow?  Why,  you  might 
just  as  consistently  charge  General  Phil.  Sheridan  with  the  act,  and  for  the 
same  reason,  for  while  he  did  not  go  into  the  matter  perhaps  as  extensively 
in  his  encomium  upon  dynamite  as  I  have  done,  yet  he  furnished  me  the 
text  from  which  I  have  drawn  my  knowledge  of  this  thing. 

But,  you  say,  my  speeches  were  sometimes  extravagant,  unlawful.  Dur¬ 
ing  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  extension  of  chattel  slavery  into 
the  new  territories,  into  Kansas  and  the  west,  while  Charles  Sumner  was 
yet  a  member  of  the  United  States  senate,  and  that  gallant  man  stood  as 
the  champion  of  freedom  upon  that  floor,  he  was  expostulated  with  on 
one  occasion  and  reprimanded  by  a  friend,  who  said  to  him:  “Sumner,  you 
are  not  expedient ;  you  must  have  more  policy  about  what  you  say,  you 
should  not  express  yourself  in  this  manner;  you  should  not  be  so  denun- 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


83 


ciatory  and  fanciful  against  this  slavery,  this  enslavement.  I  know  it  is 
wrong;  I  know  it  should  be  denounced,  but  keep  inside  of  the  law;  keep 
inside  of  the  constitution.” 

Your  honor,  I  quote  from  the  speech  of  Charles  Sumner,  that  great 
American,  in  answer  and  in  reply  to  that  remark.  Said  he:  “Anything  for 
human  rights  is  constitutional.  No  learning  in  books,  no  skill  acquired  in 
courts,  no  sharpness  in  forensic  dealings,  no  cunning  in  splitting  hairs  can 
impair  the  vigor  thereof.  This  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything 
in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.”  I 
never  said  anything  that  could  equal  that  in  lawlessness.  Go,  gentlemen  of 
the  prosecution,  dig  up  the  ashes  of  Sumner  and  scatter  them  in  disgrace 
to  the  winds,  tear  down  the  monument  that  the  American  people  have  erected 
to  his  honor,  and  erect  thereon  some  emblem  of  your  contempt ! 

I  will  read  you  now  an  extract  from  the  Alarm ,  a  little  editorial:  “Any 
pretense  called  freedom,  however  loudly  heralded,  which  does  not  bring 
peace,  plenty  and  comfort  to  all  the  members  of  the  human  race,  is  a  lie 
and  a  fraud  on  the  face  of  it.”  Another  expression  from  the  Alarm — a 
little  editorial:  “A  man  gets  rich  by  meanness  and  poor  because  he  is 
generous.  How  long  can  we  tolerate  the  vile  system  which  rewards  mean¬ 
ness  and  starves  generosity?” 

Your  honor,  one  of  the  most  startling  facts  in  connection  with  this 
trial,  the  labor  movement,  and  the  general  situation  of  affairs  is  to  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  during  the  last  two  or  three  years  at  least  one-half 
of  the  large  industrial  establishments  of  the  United  States,  the  larger  cor¬ 
porations,  monopolies,  and  industries,  have  been  conducted  under  military 
supervision.  A  startling  fact  this  is.  Armed  men,  armed  guards,  either 
the  Pinkertons  or  the  police,  the  police  of  the  municipalities  in  the  cities,  or 
the  militia,  or  the  United  States  army,  as  has  been  done  in  some  cases,  are 
supervising  one-half  of  the  industries  of  America,  that  is,  the  larger  indus¬ 
tries.  It  is  a  positive  fact.  Think  of  this!  Who  is  doing  this!  Now,  as  an 
offset  to  this  state  of  affairs,  we  find  1,200  delegates  assembled  in  Richmond, 
Va.,  representing  our  American  workingmen  in  the  convention  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor.  That  congress,  that  organization  is  the  reply  which  is 
being  made  by  peaceable  laborers  to  the  rifle  diet  advice,  the  strychnine 
business,  and  the  hand  grenade  business,  and  club  business  advice  by  the 
Chicago,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  other  large  papers  in  this  country. 
These  men  are  assembled  in  self-defense.  The  conflict  is  the  struggle  be¬ 
tween  liberty  and  authority — authority  in  any  and  every  form.  Those  who 
are  in  authority  tell  the  workingmen  that  if  they  want  to  enjoy  the  law 
and  the  protection  of  the  law,  they  must  render  a  cheerful  obedience  to  the 
law.  Why  a  man,  when  he  flogs  his  slave  for  disobedience,  tells  him  the 
same  thing.  Your  honor,  according  to  your  construction  of  sentence,  or  the 
reason  which  you  propose  as  a  portion  of  the  ground  work  upon  which 
you  expect  to  render  your  proposed  sentence,  you  deny  the  right  of  Amer¬ 
icans  to  defend  themselves  against  the  rifle  diet,  and  to  protest  against  these 
outrageous  things,  to  object  to  the  strychnine  business.  These  are  the  things 
that  have  made  us  what  we  are.  If  there  be  any  wrong  in  me  I  am  the 
product  of  these  conditions.  I  am  the  creature  of  circumstances ;  I  am  the 
effect  of  a  cause.  Now,  where  is  that  cause?  What  is  that  cause?  But, 
if  it  comes  to  that,  the  right  of  free  speech,  the  right  of  free  press,  the 
right  of  peaceable  assemblage,  and  the  right  of  self-defense  is  denied  to  the 
workingman;  if  that  is  going  to  be  denied  us  by  the  courts  of  law,  what 
is  going  to  be  the  result?  Why,  the  workingmen  will  immediately  say 
as  a  matter  of  necessity,  “Why,  of  what  use  to  us  is  the  law?  What  is  the 
constitution  for?  Of  what  value  is  it  to  us?  It  certainly  must  belong  to 
somebody.  Yes,  it  is  used  for  somebody  else’s  benefit  and  protection,  not 
surely  for  ours.”  This  will  be  the  natural  conclusion,  inevitably. 

There  was  no  evidence  produced  to  implicate  me  with  the  Haymarket 


84 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


bomb.  Why,  the  evidence  that  was  produced  only  touched  two  of  us,  only 
implicated  two  of  us,  and  that  evidence,  as  your  honor  must  know,  was 
paid  for.  Everybody  knows  it.  Your  honor  knows  it.  Your  honor  does 
not  credit  that  testimony  of  Gilmer.  You  cannot  do  it.  It  was  over¬ 
whelmingly  and  irresistibly  impeached.  This  man  is  the  slender  thread  that 
connects  two  of  us  with  that  Haymarket  affair.  Now,  what  are  the  facts 
about  this  Haymarket  affair?  On  Tuesday  evening,  May  4,  several  thou¬ 
sand  persons,  working  people,  assembled  at  the  Haymarket  to  discuss  their 
grievances,  namely  the  eight  hour  strike,  and  the  attack  and  killing  of  sev¬ 
eral  workingmen  by  the  police  the  day  before.  Those  citizens,  thus  as¬ 
sembled  in  the  peaceable  exercise  of  free  speech,  free  press,  and  public 
assembly  under  their  constitutional  rights,  were  upon  the  eve  of  adjourning, 
it  being  after  10  o’clock,  when  they  were  charged  upon  by  200  armed  police, 
and  under  pain  and  penalty  of  instant  death  and  wholesale  slaughter,  com¬ 
manded  to  disperse,  ordered  like  slaves  to  sneak  and  cringe  and  crawl  away 
from  the  presence  of  their  masters.  Now,  was  not  that  an  affront?  Was 
not  that  a  most  grievous  outrage?  Was  not  that  a  violation  of  all  those 
principles  for  which  our  forefathers  struggled  in  this  country?  At  this 
juncture  some  unknown  and  unproven  person  throws  a  bomb  among  the 
police,  killing  several  men.  You  say  that  I  did  it,  or  you  say  that  I  knew 
of  it.  Where  is  your  proof,  gentlemen  of  the  prosecution?  You  have  none. 
You  didn’t  have  any.  Oh,  but  you  have  a  theory,  and  that  theory  is  that 
no  one  else  could  have  had  any  motive  to  hurl  that  missile  of  death  except 
myself,  and,  as  is  the  common  remark  of  the  great  papers  of  the  city,  the 
police  are  never  short  of  a  theory.  There  is  always  a  theory  on  hand  for 
everything.  A  theory  they  have  got,  and  especially  the  detectives ;  they 
hatch  out  a  theory  at  once  and  begin  to  follow  that  up.  There  was  a 
theory  carried  out  during  this  trial.  Let  us  examine  that  theory.  I  say  that 
a  Pinkerton  man,  or  a  member  of  the  Chicago  police  force  itself,  had  as 
much  inducement  to  throw  that  bomb  as  I  had,  and  why?  Because  it  would 
demonstrate  the  necessity  for  their  existence  and  result  in  an  increase  of 
their  pay  and  their  wages.  Are  these  people  too  good  to  do  such  a  thing? 
Are  they  any  better  than  I  am?  Are  their  motives  any  better  than  my  own? 
Let  us  look  at  this  thing  from  every  standpoint.  Perhaps,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  dread  missile  was  hurled  in  revenge  by  some  poor  man  or  woman, 
or  child  even,  whose  parent  or  protector  or  friend  was  killed  by  the  police 
in  some  one  of  their  numerous  massacres  of  the  people  before.  Who 
knows?  And  if  it  was,  are  we  seven  to  suffer  death  for  that?  Are  we 
responsible  for  that  act?  Or,  might  it  not  be  that  some  person  with  the  fear 
of  death  in  his  eyes  threw  that  bomb  in  self-defense?  And  if  they  did,  am 
I  responsible  for  that?  Am  I  to  be  executed  for  that?  Is  it  law  to  put 
me  to  death  for  that?  And  who  knows?  My  own  deliberate  opinion  con¬ 
cerning  this  Haymarket  affair  is  that  the  death-dealing  missile  was  the  work, 
the  deliberate  work  of  monopoly,  the  act  of  those  who  themselves  charge 
us  with  the  deed.  I  am  not  alone  in  this  view  of  the  matter. 

Let  me  first  of  all  call  your  attention  to  the  pre-existing  conspiracy  of 
monopoly  against  the  American  people,  which  I  believe  culminated  in  the 
Haymarket  there.  I  will  give  you  a  brief  outline  or  history  of  this  great 
crime;  of  the  principles  of  the  long  antecedent  conspiracy  on  the  part  of  the 
Chicago  Times  and  Tribune  to  use  hand  grenades,  recommending  the  rifle 
diet  for  strikers,  and  arsenic  and  strychnine  for  the  unemployed,  as  the  out¬ 
come  of  Gould’s  admonition  in  the  New  York  Tribune  that  it  is  soon  that 
American  workingmen  must  prepare  to  submit  to  the  same  wages  as  their 
European  brethren,  that  of  the  coercive  policy  of  the  hand  grenade  and 
rifle  diet.  This  all  resulted  from  the  deliberate  attempt  of  corporations  to 
pay  interest  and  dividends  on  bonds  and  stock  which  were  clear  water 
without  a  speck  of  dye  in  it,  and,  to  keep  up  these  double,  treble  and  some¬ 
times  quadruple  payments  above  the  actual  cash  valuation  of  all  the  exist- 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


85 


ing  capital  and  innumerable  corporations  which  girdle  and  reticulate  the 
land,  not  only  was  production,  transportation  and  telegraphic  industry  taxed 
four-fold,  that  it  should  bear  in  excess  of  ten  per  cent,  upon  actual  cash 
cost,  and  this  conducted  on  a  contracted  volume  of  money  in  order  to 
enhance  its  purchasing  power  and  usurious  value,  and  enable  them  to  dic¬ 
tate  the  price  of  labor  and  its  products;  but  the  greatest  crime  of  all:  con¬ 
gress  framed  a  bill  by  which,  when  bankrupted,  the  middle  classes  are 
brought  to  the  verge  of  want  by  foreclosure  of  mortgage  upon  their  farms. 
The  managers  of  these  corporations  then  turn  their  whole  attention  to  the 
reduction  of  expenses,  which  follows  as  a  direct  blow  at  the  wages  of 
those  by  whose  skill  and  labor  the  railroad,  telegraph,  and  telephone,  and 
other  corporations  do  their  work,  knowing  that  the  overcrowded  labor  mar¬ 
ket  would  compel  their  employees  to  accept  their  wages  to  supply  their  wants 
or  starve.  An  industrial  war  follows,  because  the  wage  system  enables 
monopoly  to  do  these  things.  Now,  upon  this  the  wage  question  has  its 
basis.  The  crisis  was  reached  when  organized  labor  struck  against  long  hours 
on  the  1st  of  May,  1886,  following  the  protest  in  April  of  the  15,000  em¬ 
ployees  of  Gould’s  Missouri  railway  system  of  the  southwest  against  the 
wages  of  fifty-five  and  seventy  cents  a  day  to  which  Gould’s  corporation  and 
Manager  Hoxie  had  reduced  the  army  of  skilled  railroad  operatives ;  but 
these  events  were  precipitated  on  the  first  by  the  massed  labor  unions,  and 
the  latter  by  the  district  assemblies  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  of  the  south¬ 
west.  What  was  the  issue?  On  railroad  stocks  alone  on  all  the  roads 
within  the  United  States,  at  a  cost  of  two  billion  dollars,  there  was  a  capi¬ 
talization  of  six  billions.  Now,  imagine  the  effect  of  this  false  and  fictitious 
value  of  labor,  for  skill  and  labor  alone  give  any  value  to  the  stocks  and 
bonds  and  enable  these  monopoly  inflationists  to  build  up  vast  incomes  on 
that  which  has  merely  cost  the  paper  on  which  these  false  calculations  were 
issued.  The  employees  of  these  public  institutions  and  their  patrons  cannot 
understand  why  these  holders,  owners,  and  issuers  of  fictitious  stocks  and 
bonds  regard  it  as  a  crime  to  strike.  That  was  an  issue  in  1877,  and  it  is 
an  issue  now  in  1886  between  the  monopoly  inflationists  who  hold  that  a 
strike  for  higher  wages,  which  also  aims  to  prevent  other  labor  avocations 
from  accepting  the  meager  wage  doled  out  to  labor,  is  a  blow  struck  at  the 
liberty  of  contract,  which  is  the  only  means  left  them  to  realize  dividends 
and  interest  on  their  fictitious  wealth.  Noble  and  sacrificing!  These 
monopolists  care  nothing  for  liberty,  but  everything  for  the  power  to  con¬ 
tract  with  competing  starving  laborers. 

Now,  your  honor,  the  victims  of  these  wrongs  are  numbered  by  the  mil¬ 
lions  in  the  United  States,  one  million  of  whom  it  is  officially  reported  by 
the  Labor  Bureau  are  out  of  employment. 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  about  this  time,  published  the  following  senti¬ 
ment:  “The  simplest  plan  probably  when  one  is  not  a  member  of  the 
Humane  Society  is  to  put  arsenic  in  the  supplies  of  food  furnished  the 
unemployed  or  the  tramp.  This  produces  death  in  a  short  time,  and  is  a 
warning  to  other  tramps  to  keep  out  of  the  neighborhood.”  The  unem¬ 
ployed  are  kept  for  better  uses  now — to  take  the  place  of  strikers.  They 
don’t  want  to  kill  them  off  with  strychnine  now.  The  Chicago  Times  used 
the  same  advice  with  reference  to  the  same  matter  while  the  great  railroad 
strike  of  1877  was  pending,  and  the  president  of  the  Pennsylvania  Com¬ 
pany — Tom  Scott — says :  “Give  them  the  rifle  diet  and  see  how  they  like 
that  kind  of  bread.”  I  have  spoken  here  of  monopoly  conspiracy.  Now,  to 
show  my  words  are  not  extravagant  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
expressions  of  three  senators  on  the  floor  of  the  United  States  senate  in  the 
last  session  of  the  American  congress.  They  had  a  long  discussion  of  the 
Bland  silver  bill  and  the  currency  question,  and  during  the  debate  on  that 
question  Senator  Teller  used  these  words — he  said :  “There  is  a  conspir¬ 
acy  all  over  the  world  on  the  part  of  capital  against  labor,  a  conspiracy 


86 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


which  does  not  exist  in  the  United  States  alone,  but  in  which  this  gov¬ 
ernment  is  an  active  agent — a  conspiracy  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the 
value  of  the  dollar  and  of  decreasing  the  value  of  man’s  production  every¬ 
where  in  the  world.”  “It  is  a  conspiracy,  as  Mr.  Teller  said,  for  those  who 
have  power  to  take  advantage  of,  and  perpetuate  the  outrage  and  the 
wrong  upon  those  who  are  helpless  and  powerless.”  Mr.  Vest,  in  the  dis¬ 
cussion  upon  the  floor  of  the  senate,  used  these  words.  He  said  he  also 
preferred  the  house  resolutions.  He  said  that  the  question  was  one  between 
gold  and  silver,  between  gold  and  greenbacks ;  between  the  man  who  wanted 
to  make  money  dear  and  the  man  who  borrowed  the  money;  and  unless 
this  trouble  was  terminated  on  equitable  and  fair  grounds  it  would  result 
in  a  sectional  struggle  between  the  east  and  the  west.  That  was  the  plain 
meaning  of  the  whole  thing.  It  was  a  conspiracy!  Senator  Jones,  o£ 
Nevada,  discussing  the  same  thing,  said  that  his  belief  was  “that  the 
shrinking  volumes  of  money  had  inflicted  more  evil,  more  suffering,  more 
penalties  upon  the  American  people  than  they  had  ever  suffered  from 
war,  pestilence,  or  famine.  What  the  people  want  is  money;  not  gold  nor 
silver,  but  dollars  and  what  liquidates  the  debt  and  keeps  the  red  flag  of 
the  sheriff  away  from  the  window.”  Your  honor  will  observe  he  did  not 
refer  to  the  red  flag  of  the  commune  in  that  particular.  Now,  to  the  mind 
of  this  United  States  senator,  the  only  red  flag  that  is  dangerous  in  the 
United  States  is  the  sheriff’s — the  flag  of  the  auctioneer,  denoting  the  death 
of  what?  Denoting  the  financial  demise  of  some  business  man  who  has  been 
destroyed  by  these  conspiracies  spoken  of  by  Senator  Vest,  Senator  Teller, 
and  Senator  Jones,  of  the  United  States  senate.  These  organized,  legalized 
conspiracies  that  are  bringing  about  wholesale  bankruptcies ;  conspiracies  that 
inflate’  the  railway  stock  of  the  country  from  two  billion  dollars  to  six  bil¬ 
lion  dollars;  which  compel  the  people  of  this  country  to  pay  interest  upon 
four  billion  dollars  of  watered  stock  upon  railroads  alone,  compelling  the 
workingmen  of  America  to  pay  in  wages  for  this  inflation,  for  labor  in  the 
end  must  foot  the  bill.  Now,  these  men  urge  this  is  a  conspiracy.  So  do 
I,  and  so  do  the  workingmen  of  this  country.  We  agree  with  them.  Now, 
this  is  a  part  of  the  programme  culminating  here  in  this  Haymarket  affair 
on  the  4th  of  May  last.  This  deplorable  conspiracy  to  which  I  referred 
incidentally  before,  and  which  I  now  wish  to  give  to  the  court  in  detail,  to 
break  down  the  eight  hour  movement  and  avenge  itself  upon  the  leaders 
of  the  labor  movement,  furnishes  indisputable  proof  that  we,  the  eight  hour 
men,  here  at  this  bar,  are  the  victims  of  that  foul  conspiracy  to  rob  and 
enslave  the  American  people. 

What  are  the  real  facts  of  that  Haymarket  tragedy?  Mayor  Harrison, 
of  Chicago,  has  caused  to  be  published  his  opinion,  because,  mark  you,  this 
is  all  a  matter  of  conjecture.  They  have  only  assumed  that  some  one  of 
these  men  threw  the  bomb.  It  is  only  an  inference  that  any  of  us  had 
anything  to  do  with  it.  It  is  not  a  fact,  and  it  is  not  proven.  It  is  merely 
an  opinion.  Your  honor  admits  that  we  did  not  perpetrate  the  deed,  or 
know  who  did  it,  but  that  we,  by  our  speeches,  instigated  some  one  else  to 
cjo  so.  Now,  let  us  see  the  other  side  of  this  case.  Mayor  Harrison  of 
Chicago,  has  caused  to  be  published  in  the  New  York  World,  and  which 
was  copied  in  the  Tribune  of  this  city,  this  statement:  “I  do  not  believe 
there  was  any  intention  on  the  part  of  Spies  and  those  men  to  have  bombs 
thrown  at  the  Haymarket.  If  so,  why  was  there  but  one  thrown?  It  was 
just  as  easy  for  them  to  throw  a  dozen  or  fifty,  and  to  throw  them  in  all 
parts  of  the  city,  as  it  was  to  have  thrown  one.  And  again,  if  it  was  in¬ 
tended  to  throw  bombs  that  night,  the  leaders  would  not  have  been  there 
at  all,  in  my  opinion.  Like  commanders  in  chief,  they  would  have  been  in 
a  safe  place.  No,  it  cannot  be  shown  that  there  was  any  intention  on  the 
part  of  these  individuals  to  kill  that  particular  man  who  was  killed  at  that 
Haymarket  meeting.”  Now,  your  honor,  this  is  the  mayor  of  Chicago.  He 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


87 


is  a  sensible  man.  He  is  in  a  position  to  know  what  he  is  talking  about. 
He  has  first-rate  opportunities  to  form  an  intelligent  opinion,  and  his 
opinion  is  worthy  of  respect.  He  knows  more  about  this  thing  than  the 
jury  that  sat  in  this  room,  for  he  knows — I  suspect  that  the  mayor  knows — 
of  some  of  the  methods  by  which  most  of  this  so-called  evidence  and  testi¬ 
mony  was  manufactured.  I  don’t  charge  it,  but  possibly  he  has  had  some 
intimation  of  it,  and  if  he  has  he  knows  more  about  this  case  and  the 
merits  of  this  case  than  did  the  jury  who  sat  here.  There  is  too  much  at 
stake  to  take  anything  for  granted.  Your  honor  can’t  afford  to  do  that. 

Is  it  nothing  to  destroy  the  lives  of  seven  men?  Are  the  rights  of  the 
poor  of  no  consequence?  Is  it  nothing,  that  we  should  regard  it  so  lightly, 
as  a  mere  pastime?  That  is  why  I  stand  here  at  such  length  to  present 
this  case  to  you,  that  you  may  understand  it;  that  you  may  have  our  side 
of  this  question  as  well  as  that  of  the  prosecution.  Now,  this  opinion  of 
Mayor  Harrison  was  based  upon  his  personal  observation,  on  the  ground  at 
the  Haymarket  meeting.  Mark  you,  he  was  there,  and  this  is  his  opinion, 
both  as  to  the  character  of  the  speeches  and  the  deportment  both  of  the 
speakers  and  of  the  audience,  on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May,  in  which  opinion 
Inspector  Bonfield  himself  concurred  with  the  mayor :  that  it  was  a  peace¬ 
able  meeting,  calling  for  no  interference  to  within  ten  minutes  of  the  un¬ 
lawful  order  to  disperse  the  same  by  the  guardians  of  the  peace  and  the 
preservers  of  order.  Now,  the  two  witnesses  for  the  prosecution,  who  are 
they?  Walier  and  Schroeder.  Those  were  the  State’s  informers,  called 
“squealers,”  upon  whom  the  State  attempted  to  base  the  proof  and  charged 
the  conspiracy  against  us.  Have  they  made  out  a  case  on  the  testimony 
of  these  men?  Let  us  take  the  evidence  for  a  moment.  These  men  were 
the  first  witnesses  called,  and  they  absolutely  and  completely  negative  the 
idea,  and  not  alone  the  idea,  but  the  fact  itself,  that  the  collision  of  the 
Haymarket  was  ever  contemplated  at  that  meeting,  much  less  provided  for 
by  any  perpetrator  whatever.  Now,  that  stands  as  a  fact  in  the  testimony 
here.  It  was  not  brought  about  by  any  person  or  by  any  individual,  or  by 
any  member  of  the  so-called  armed  group,  and  your  honor  won’t  claim 
that  we  have  not  a  right  to  have  an  armed  group.  Your  honor  will  not 
say  it  is  unlawful  to  have  an  armed  group  if  we  want  it.  As  I  under¬ 
stand  the  law  and  the  constitution,  if  we  want  an  organized  group  we 
have  the  right  to  it.  The  constitution  defines  that  treason  against  the  gov¬ 
ernment  consists  in  the  fact,  only  in  the  fact,  of  an  overt  act  proven,  indis¬ 
putably  proven,  by  at  least  two  persons.  This  is  what  I,  as  an  American, 
understood  the  constitution  to  mean.  You  say  in  your  remarks  upon  the 
sentence  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  what  this  was  an  unlawful  com¬ 
bination.  Well,  suppose  it  was.  If  I  am  a  member  of  an  unlawful  com¬ 
bination,  am  I  to  be  hung  for  that?  Are  seven  men  to  be  exterminated 
for  that?  Are  there  not  surely  some  degrees  in  punishment?  Because  I 
belong  to  an  unlawful  combination  am  I  to  be  put  to  death?  Why,  that 
would  be  cruel.  That  would  be  a  verdict  of  hate.  That  would  be  a  penalty 
of  vengeance,  not  of  justice,  and  it  is  not  proven;  it  has  not  been  alleged, 
even,  nor  has  it  been  shown,  that  I  was  a  member  of  an  unlawful  com¬ 
bination.  That  question  has  not  been  put  in  consideration  in  this  court ;  it 
has  not  been  here  to  be  established  by  this  jury  whether  or  not  I  am  now 
or  ever  was  a  member  of  an  unlawful  combination.  Now,  for  proof  of  the 
charge  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  honor’s  attention,  that  there  was  no 
conspiracy,  and  given  out  of  the  mouths  of  these  witnesses  of  the  State, 
I  will  cite  the  very  words  of  the  witness  Waller  himself.  In  reply  to  in¬ 
terrogatories  by  the  State’s  attorney  as  to  what  was  said  at  the  meeting 
after  he  had  called  it  to  order,  Waller  said,  “It  was  said  that  these  men 
had  been  killed  at  McCormick’s,”  referring  to  the  strikers  killed  by  the 
police  the  day  before. 

Engel  brought  forward  a  resolution  at  the  April  meeting,  and  what  did 


88 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


Engel  say?  He  said  that  if  through  the  fall  of  the  strikers  the  other  men 
should  come  into  conflict  with  the  police,  we  should  aid  them.  He  then 
told  us  that  the  northwestern  group  had  resolved  to  bring  aid  to  these  men ; 
that  if,  on  account  of  this  work,  something  should  happen  to  the  police,  we 
must  assemble  at  the  corners.  What  else  did  Engel  say?  He  said  that  if 
tumults  occurred  in  the  city,  then  we  should  meet  in  Wicker  Park;  if  the 
word  should  appear  in  the  paper,  that  the  northwestern  group  and  the  Lehr- 
und  Wehr-Verein  should  assemble  in  the  park  with  arms.  After  Engel  said 
this,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  watch  the  movements  in  the  city  and 
report  to  us  if  a  riot  should  occur. 

Now  then,  take  into  consideration  this  language.  Just  consider  the  situ¬ 
ation.  Look  at  the  attitude  of  these  capitalist  papers  for  years  toward  the 
workingmen ;  and  not  only  that,  but  the  actual  use  of  these  armed  hirelings 
at  East  St.  Louis,  at  Saginaw,  at  Pittsburg,  all  over  the  country,  and  at 
McCormick’s  the  day  before.  Look  at  the  condition  of  affairs,  and  I  ask 
you  if  these  men  were  nor  justified  in  making  some  preparation  by  which 
they  could  defend  themselves,  because  there  is  no  proposition  here  to  assault 
anybody.  There  is  no  proposition  here  to  make  war  upon  anybody,  either 
their  persons  or  their  property: 

Q.  “Now,  was  anything  said  about  having  a  meeting  of  workingmen 
the  next  day?” 

A.  ‘  Yes,  sir;  I  proposed  that  a  meeting  should  be  held  the  next  after¬ 
noon,  but  that  was  rejected.  It  was  decided  to  have  a  meeting  in  the  even¬ 
ing,  as  more  could  come  then.” 

Q.  “Who  proposed  calling  a  meeting  in  the  evening?” 

A.  “Fischer.  He  proposed  having  one  at  the  Haymarket  and  it  was 
finally  resolved  to  call  one  at  8  o’clock.” 

Q.  “Was  anything  said  as  to  what  should  be  done  at  that  meeting?” 

A.  “It  was  intended  to  cheer  up  the  workmen  so  that  if  anything 
should  happen  they  should  be  prepared  for  a  conflict.  It  was  decided  to  call 
this  meeting  by  means  of  hand  bills.  The  getting  up  of  this  was  intrusted 
to  Fischer,  but  he  did  not  say  where  they  should  be  printed.  It  was  decided 
that  as  a  body  we  should  not  participate  in  the  Haymarket  meeting,  but 
should  meet  at  halls.  While  only  a  committee  should  be  at  the  Haymarket, 
if  the  committee  reported  that  something  happened,  we  should  attack  the 
police  where  it  was  arranged  for  each  group  to  do  so;  if  necessary,  in  addi¬ 
tion  to  the  police,  we  would  attack  the  militia  and  fire  department.” 

Now,  then,  in  the  first  part  of  this  it  says  that  in  the  case  of  the  police 
coming  upon  the  strikers,  shooting  the  strikers  down,  destroying  them,  inter¬ 
fering  with  the  people,  interfering  unlawfully,  interfering  with  the  right  of 
the  people  to  assemble,  interfering  with  the  right  of  the  people  to  express 
their  views,  mark  you,  it  was  said  in  such  a  contingency  they  would  defend 
themselves.  Now,  these  men  here  upon  the  stand,  Schroeder  and  Waller 
who  were  giving  the  testimony,  used  the  word  “attack.”  When  it  was 
translated  “attack,”  you  must  not  take  that  as  a  literal  meaning  of  these 
men  It  was  defense.  They  meant  by  this  word  defense.  If  it  had  been 
literally  translated  as  these  men  meant  it,  and  as  the  spirit  of  the  testimony 
shows,  the  word  would  not  have  been  “attack,”  but  would  have  been  de¬ 
fense.  In  every  instance  the  whole  preparation  and  proof  about  it  shows 
that  it  was  for  defense.  What  could  they  attack?  What  can  a  handful  of 
men  attack?  There  was  only  a  handful  of  men  there  at  best.  What  can 
they  attack?  Who  can  they  attack?  What  could  they  capture?  What 
could  they  take?  Wouldn’t  it  be  ridiculous  for  them  to  undertake  to  attack 
the  city  of  Chicago,  to  attack  the  authorities,  to  undertake  to  seize  the  city? 
Why,  that  would  be  nonsense.  It  would  be  ridiculous.  Upon  the  very  face 
of  it,  it  is  an  absurdity.  It  was  for  defense.  They  said  that  it  was  for 
defense,  and  for  no  other  purpose,  in  the  event  that  the  police  invaded  the 
meetings  of  workingmen  and  unlawfully — as  Judge  McAllister  had  told  the 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


89 


workingmen  of  the  city,  that  the  police  of  Chicago  could  not  unlawfully 
invade  their  meetings,  and  break  them  up — Judge  McAllister  had  told  us 
this  in  his  decision.  We  believed  that  that  was  what  the  law  was.  We  be¬ 
lieved  that  we  had  the  constitutional  right  to  assemble.  Now,  why  shouldn’t 
we  protect  ourselves  in  such  a  contingency? 

In  this  connection  right  here  [Judge  Gary  indicated  his  impatience]  — 
Please,  bear  with  me  for  a  few  minutes.  In  1877 — to  show  you  what  the 
police  will  do,  and  what  they  will  do  unlawfully — they  broke  down  the 
doors;  they  entered  the  hall  at  West  Twelfth  street  Turner  Hall,  where  the 
Furniture  Workers’  Union  was  in  session  considering  the  eight  hour  move¬ 
ment  just  as  we  were  at  the  Haymarket  that  night,  and  the  question  of 
wages.  They  broke  into  that  hall.  They  drove  the  people  out  with  club 
and  pistol,  and  fired  among  them,  and  they  killed  one  of  the  people  in  that 
hall,  and  Judge  McAllister,  upon  the  trial  afterward  declared  that  that  was 
an  outrageous  assault,  that  it  was  cruel,  bloody  murder,  and  that  if  every 
single  policeman — and  there  were  about  twenty-five  or  thirty  who  went  into 
that  establishment — Judge  McAllister  said  that  if  every  policeman,  if  every 
single  one  of  them  had  been  killed  on  the  spot,  no  one  could  have  been 
harmed  for  doing  it.  This  was  the  decision  of  the  judge;  that  has  stood 
as  the  law.  These  things  had  been  done  in  Chicago.  The  police  swept 
down  through  the  lumber  yards  at  McCormick’s  the  day  before.  Those 
things  were  done  all  over  the  country  and  through  the  city  to  put  down 
strikes  everywhere.  Now,  where  is  the  crime  in  our  having  said  that  we 
would,  if  no  other  remedy  or  redress  was  left  us,  that  we  would  follow  the 
law  laid  down  by  Judge  McAllister  and  use  our  right,  our  constitutional 
right,  our  legal  light  to  defend  ourselves? 

Well,  now,  mark  you,  this  Schroeder  and  this  Waller  were  witnesses 
for  the  State;  they  were  what  is  called  “squealers,”  and  they  were  men — 
now,  don’t  forget  this  point — these  men  were  telling  their  story  under  a 
great  bribe.  What  was  that  bribe?  Liberty  and  life,  two  of  the  greatest 
and  sweetest  things  known  to  man.  Life  and  liberty  were  offered  to 
Schroeder  and  Waller.  Was  it  from  the  fact  that  they  were  given  money, 
as  was  testified  to  by  both  of  them,  and  uncontradicted  by  the  prosecution? 
Aside  from  that  fact,  ITfe  and  liberty  were  given  to  these  men  if  they  would 
tell  a  story  that  would  fit  a  theory  and  carry  out  a  certain  line  of  the  prose¬ 
cution  to  bring  about  a  certain  verdict.  They  gave  that  kind  of  testimony. 
You  will  remember  that  Seliger’s  wife  upon  the  stand  testified  that  these 
men  were  kept  by  Captain  Schaack  in  the  station,  under  durance  vile,  and 
herself  also,  until  both  Seliger  and  Waller  were  compelled,  under  intimi¬ 
dation,  to  sign  four  different  statements  in  writing;  that  is  an  uncontradict- 
able  statement.  Consider  the  condition  under  which  these  men  gave  this 
testimony,  and  even  with  all  that,  they  only  testify  that  the  meeting  was 
for  the  purpose  of  defense,  and  not  for  any  action  at  the  Haymarket  meet¬ 
ing,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Haymarket  meeting,  had  no  connection 
with  the  Haymarket  meeting.  This  is  the  statement  of  the  witnesses  for 
the  State  on  the  part  of  the  conspirators,  so-called.  On  cross-examination 
the  question  was  asked:  “Well,  didn’t  Engel  say  in  reference  to  the  plan 
of  action  agreed  upon  by  the  armed  group  on  Monday  night  and  on  Sunday 
that  it  was  to  be  carried  out  in  case  the  police  should  interfere  with  your 
right  of  free  speech  and  free  assemblage?”  “If  the  police  should  attack 
us,  yes.” 

That  this  plan  was  to  be  followed  only  when  the  police  would — I  believe 
Captain  Black  asked  this  question — “would  by  brutal  force  interfere  with 
your  right  of  free  assemblage  and  free  speech?” 

A.  “It  was  said  that  we  would  use  or  resort  to  this  plan  or  the  execu¬ 
tion  of  it  whenever  the  police  should  attack  us.” 

Now  listen  to  that,  your  honor.  Up  here,  you  understand,  in  one  part 
of  this  testimony  it  is  said  we  got  ready  to  attack  the  police,  and  down  here 


90 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


on  the  cross-examination  it  shows  that  the  witness  himself  meant  that  we 
should  defend  ourselves — not  attack  the  police.  It  was  an  absurdity — per¬ 
fectly  absurd — to  talk  about  a  handful  of  men  attacking  the  authorities  of 
this  city.  What,  if  they  got  the  city  of  Chicago,  wouldn’t  it  be  a  white 
elephant?  What,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  could  they  do  with  it?  It 
reminds  me  of  some  people  who  are  afraid  that  if  the  world  should  be  made 
free  and  the  workingmen  should  come  into  their  liberty  that  they  would 
steal  the  world  and  run  oft  with  it.  What  would  they  do  with  it  if  they 
did?  It  is  an  absurd  proposition.  Now,  the  statement  of  these  men  under 
cross-examination  shows  what  their  intention  was,  and  they  used  the  word 
“defense,”  whereas,  in  the  direct  examination,  and  by  the  translation  of  the 
district  attorney,  they  are  made  in  English  to  use  the  word  “attack” : 

Q.  “You  say  that  nothing  was  said  at  the  Monday  night  meeting  with 
reference  to  any  action  to  be  taken  by  you  at  the  Haymarket?” 

A.  “We  said  we  would  do  nothing  there;  we  were  not  to  do  anything 
at  the  Haymarket.” 

Q.  “Was  it  not  the  clan  that  you  should  not  be  there  at  all?” 

A.  “Yes,  sir.” 

These  are  the  State’s  witnesses  upon  which  they  propose  to  show  and 
prove  a  conspiracy  against  us,  your  honor. 

Q.  “And  you  also  say  that  you  did  not  anticipate  that  the  policemen 
would  come  to  the  Haymarket?” 

A.  “No,  we  did  not  think  the  police  would  come  to  the  Haymarket.” 

Q.  “For  this  reason  no  preparations  were  made  for  meeting  any  police 
attack  on  the  Haymarket  square?” 

A.  “Not  by  them.” 

Q.  “Was  it  not  the  sole  purpose  of  the  meeting  at  the  Haymarket  to 
protest  against  the  action  of  the  police  in  the  shooting  of  the  workingmen 
at  McCormick’s  factory?” 

A.  “Yes,  sir” 

This  was  the  testimony  of  the  State’s  witness,  Waller. 

Mr.  Schroeder,  another  witness  upon  whom  the  State  rested  to  prove 
there  was  a  concerted  plot  to  entrap  and  destroy  the  police,  swore :  “Lingg 
was  not  present.  We  talked  about  the  condition  of  the  workingmen,  and 
the  remark  was  made  that  the  members  of  the  northwestern  group  should 
go  to  Wicker  Park  in  case  the  police  should  make  an  attack  on  them” — you 
understand,  your  honor,  police  can  make  attacks.  Judge  McAllister  says 
they  can  make  unlawful  and  unconstitutional  attacks.  Now,  shall  it  be 
held  by  you  that  the  police,  like  the  kings  of  old,  can  do  no  wrong,  because 
forsooth,  there  happens  to  be  here  upon  this  trial  eight  poor  men,  eight 
workingmen,  eight  men  without  money  or  friends?  Are  we  to  be  offered 
up  and  immolated  as  a  sacrifice  upon  the  altar  of  Mammon  to  satisfy  the 
vindictive  hatred  and  greed  of  the  monopolists  of  this  city?  For  that  is 
the  sum  total  of  what  it  amounts  to,  your  honor. 

Q.  “How  should  they  defend  themselves?  Was  anything  said  about 
dynamite?” 

A.  “No;  as  well  as  anyone  could,  if  anyone  had  anything  with  him.” 

Q.  “How  long  were  you  at  Greif’s  Hall  on  that  Monday  night  pre¬ 
vious  to  the  Haymarket  meeting?”  (This  is  Schroeder.) 

A.  “Three  quarters  of  an  hour.” 

Q.  “What  was  discussed  there?” 

A.  “If  the  police  made  an  attack  upon  the  workmen” — now,  your 
honor,  keep  this  in  mind ;  the  prosecution  has  tried  to  make  out  that  there 
was  a  meeting  held ;  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  entered  into,  and  that  it 
was  resolved  upon  to  attack  the  police.  Their  own  witnesses  here,  their 
own  testimony,  shows  that  there  was  nothing  of  the  kind  intended — “if  the 
police  made  an  attack  upon  the  workmen  they  would  help  the  workmen 
to  help  themselves.” 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


91 


Q.  “Was  anything  said  about  bombs?” 

A.  “No.” 

Q.  “At  any  of  the  meetings?” 

A.  “No;  not  while  I  was  present.” 

Q.  “Well,  while  you  were  present  at  the  Monday  night  meeting  they 
talked  about  how  they  would  help  the  workmen  defend  themselves?” 

A.  “Yes,  sir.” 

Q.  “And  nothing  was  said  about  throwing  bombs  on  Monday  night, 
or  at  anv  other  time?” 

A.  “No.” 

Q.  “Was  it  not  talked  about  throwing  bombs  at  the  Haymarket  meet¬ 
ing?” 

A.  “No;  not  while  I  was  there.” 

Q.  “Then  it  was  talked  about  throwing  dynamite  to  destroy  the  police 
at  the  next  meeting  at  the  Haymarket?” 

A.  “There  was  nothing  said  about  it  while  I  was  there.” 

Q.  “You  went  to  the  Haymarket  meeting?” 

A.  “Yes,  sir:  I  was  in  a  saloon  when  the  bomb  exploded.” 

Q  “Did  you  go  there  with  any  dynamite  in  your  pocket?” 

A.  “I  don’t  know  what  dynamite  is;  don’t  know  dynamite.” 

Q.  “Did  you  know  there  would  be  trouble  at  that  meeting?” 

A.  “Well,  I  know  that  much,  that  when  the  police  should  attack  thq 
workingmen  that  each  one  should  help  themselves  as  best  they  could.” 

Q.  “At  the  time  you  left  the  meeting,  the  meeting  was  quiet  and 
peaceable?” 

A.  “Yes” 

And  this  is  the  testimony,  your  honor,  which  was  relied  upon  to  prove  a 
conspiracy  on  my  part.  Now,  I  did  not  belong  to  this  meeting;  I  did  not 
know  that  there  was  such  a  meeting.  In  fact,  I  was  not  in  Chicago.  I  was 
in  Ohio  and  the  meeting  was  conducted  in  German;  I  cannot  speak  German; 
I  do  not  understand  it.  I  never  saw  Schroeder  or  Waller  in  my  life  until 
1  saw  them  on  the  witness  stand  here.  Lingg,  the  first  time  I  ever  saw 
him  in  my  life  was  when  I  came  into  this  court  room  and  surrendered  for 
trial,  and  saw  him  sitting  in  the  prisoner’s  box.  Why,  your  honor,  it  is 
ridiculous.  It  is  an  absurdity;  it  is  a  misconception  of  the  whole  situation 
and  conjunction  of  circumstances  in  connection  with  this  whole  affair 
when  I  was  away  from  the  city,  and  this  is  a  sentence  passed  upon  me 
for  being  connected  with  a  conspiracy  which,  the  prosecution  claims,  was 
organized  for  the  purpose  and  resulted  in  the  death  of  Mathias  Degan  at 
the  Haymarket  square  on  the  4th  of  May. 

Referring  again  to  the  informer  Waller’s  testimony;  the  State’s  attor¬ 
ney  is  reported  by  the  Herald  of  July  17  as  saying  after  the  adjournment : 
“This  man’s  testimony  is  going  to  convict  the  prisoners ;”  that  is.  Waller. 
How  preposterous !  The  two  informers  disclosed  no  fact  that  bore  the 
semblance  of  a  conspiracy,  which  in  law  is  an  agreement  to  do  a  criminal 
act.  Now,  I  was  not  there.  I  did  not  know  anything  about  it.  I  do  not 
speak  German.  I  do  not  know  these  men.  I  never  saw  them  before.  I 
don’t  know  who  the  men  were  at  the  meeting.  The  only  man  that  I  know 
that  is  connected  with  this  matter,  I  believe,  is  Engel;  him  I  have  met 
before,  I  don’t  know  whether  he  was  at  the  meeting  or  not.  I  did  not  know 
there  was  such  a  meeting.  I  never  requested  it  to  be  called.  Now,  the 
State’s  attorney  says  that  this  man’s  testimony  is  the  thread  upon  which 
he  proposed  to  connect  me  with  this  conspiracy  to  do  an  unlawful  thing, 
which  resulted  in  the  death  of  Mathias  Degan  at  the  Haymarket  on  the  4th 
of  May.  How  preposterous !  These  informers  disclose  no  fact  that  bears 
the  semblance  of  a  conspiracy,  but  on  the  contrary,  their  testimony  simply 
revealed  a  noble  and  a  fraternal  and  a  patriotic  purpose ;  that — quoting  the 
language  of  Schroeder  himself — “if  the  police  made  an  attack  upon  the 


92 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


workingmen  unlawfully  again,  they  would  help  the  workingmen  to  resist 
it,  or  to  defend  themselves/'  Waller  testified  in  chief,  and  reiterated  it 
in  cross-examination,  that  Engel  and  Fischer,  these  noble  and  brave  Ger¬ 
mans,  offered  a  resolution  at  Greif’s  Hall,  on  the  announcement  that  six 
men  had  been  wantonly  and  brutally  murdered  by  the  police  at  McCor¬ 
mick’s  that  if  other  men  should  come  into  encounter  with  the  police  we 
should  aid  them,  and  further  swore  that  this  plan  was  to  be  followed  only 
when  the  police,  by  brutal  force,  should  interfere  with  the  workman’s  right 
of  free  assemblage  and  free  speech. 

Now,  then,  where  is  the  foul  and  dastardly  criminal  conspiracy  here? 
Where  it  is?  So  preposterous  was  it  on  its  face  to  call  such  a  noble  com¬ 
pact  to  do  a  lawful  thing  a  conspiracy,  that  it  became  necessary,  in  the  face 
of  a  dozen  witnesses,  both  for  the  prosecution  and  the  defense,  to  swear 
that  the  bomb  came  from  the  pavement  on  Desplaines  street,  south  of  the 
alley,  between  the  alley  and  Randolph  street,  a  statement  made  by  Bonfield 
himself  to  reporters  about  half  an  hour  after  the  tragedy  occurred,  and 
published  in  the  Times  on  May  5,  the  following  morning — Louis  Haas,  Bon- 
field's  special  detective  on  the  ground,  at  the  coroner’s  inquest,  swore  the 
bomb  was  thrown  from  the  east  side  of  Desplaines  street  and  about  fifteen 
feet,  he  believed,  south  of  the  alley,  a  statement  confirmed  by  the  witness 
Burnett,  for  the  defense,  who  located  it  fifteen  feet  even  further  south  than 
Haas  or  Bonfield  did — still,  on  the  impeached  testimony  of  Gilmer,  who 
swore  the  bomb  was  thrown  from  within  the  alley,  we  are  convicted  because 
he  was  also  willing  to  perjure  himself  by  swearing  that  Spies  lit  the  fuse 
of  the  fatal  missile.  The  idea  of  a  man  striking  a  match  in  an  alley  to  light 
a  bomb  in  the  midst  of  a  crowd,  the  people  and  police  standing  all  around 
him !  It  seems  to  me  that  such  a  statement  as  that  ought  to,  among  sensible 
men,  on  the  face  of  it,  carry  its  own  refutation.  Perfectly  absurd!  If 
this  statement  bore  the  semblance  of  truth  with  regard  to  Gilmer,  or  was 
the  truth,  not.  one  of  these  defendants  would  shrink  from  the  responsibility 
of  the  right  of  self-defense,  your  honor,  and  of  free  speech,  and  the  right 
of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble.  It  is  because  this  is  not  the -work  of 
the  Anarchists  or  of  the  workingmen,  that  we  repel  the  charge,  which 
proves  there  was  no  concerted  action,  and  that  it  was  none  of  the  plans  of 
these  groups.  It  is  not  unlawful  to  repel  an  invasion  of  our  meetings. 
In  the  case  of  the  People  vs.  Miller  the  learned  judge  McAllister  expounded 
the  law  of  Illinois  uncfer  which  the  people  had  the  right  to  assemble  at  the 
Haymarket.  He  said  they  were  entitled  to  be  as  free  from  molestation  as 
in  our  castle  and  our  homes.  We  were  not  obstructing  the  traffic  on  the 
highway.  As  there  is  no  travel  thereon  at  night  there  was  and  can  be  no 
pretense  on  that  score,  because  the  mayor  of  the  city  of  Chicago  was  pres¬ 
ent  and  did  not  interfere,  and,  in  fact,  directed  the  inspector  of  police, 
after  10  o’clock,  that  there  was  no  occasion  for  police  interference.  He, 
therefore,  as  the  sole  judge,  under  the  law,  recognized  that  assemblage  not 
only  as  a  lawful  assemblage,  but  more,  a  peaceful  assemblage,  within  the 
law  and  the  constitution  of  both  the  State  and  the  Federal  government,  and 
entitled  to  the  protection  of  both,  which  we  have  here  and  now  claimed 
in  vain,  as  this  court  refuses  in  this  instance,  or  has  up  to  this  time,  to  en¬ 
force  the  right  of  the  people.  For  these  reasons  I  ask  the  suspension  of 
your  sentence,  for  the  reasons  that  have  been  stated  here ;  that  there  was 
no  conspiracy,  that  it  was  an  organization  for  defense ;  that  the  meeting 
was  peaceable;  that  it  was  a  lawful  meeting,  as  the  mayor  of  the  city  of 
Chicago  declared  it  upon  the  stand  to  be,  and  as  Bonfield  and  Haas  both 
said,  the  morning  after  the  Haymarket  tragedy,  that  the  bomb  did  not  come 
from  the  alley,  but  south  of  it.  I  ask  your  honor  to  suspend  your  judg¬ 
ment  and  give  us  innocent  men  a  chance,  in  a  new  trial,  to  prove  these 
facts  beyond  any  question.  The  meeting,  your  honor,  was  sacred  from 
intrusion  or  trespass — as  sacred  as  a  man’s  home,  which  is  his  castle ;  even 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


93 


more,  for  an  assemblage  of  the  people  is  the  primary  seat  of  action  on 
their  part,  of  all  authority  on  their  part  in  a  republic,  and  is  guarded  by  the 
first  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  from  any  abridg¬ 
ment,  as  it  is  also  by  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  now  violated 
by  this  unconstitutional  verdict.  You  have  read  the  decision  of  Judge 
McAllister  in  this  case;  I  have  it  here.  It  would  consume  time  before  this 
court  to  read  it,  and  I  will  just  submit  it.  Your  honor  has  read  it,  of  course, 
and  I  will  not  take  up  your  time  with  the  reading  of  it.  I  offer  it,  how¬ 
ever,  as  a  part  of  the  statement  that  I  wish  to  make  in  connection  with  our 
view  of  our  defense,  and  our  appeal  to  you  for  a  new  trial  in  this  case. 

Now,  then,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  what  I  regard  as  the  origin 
of  this  bomb  at  the  Haymarket.  I  believe  it  was  instigated  by  eastern 
monopolists  to  produce  public  sentiment  against  popular  movements,  es¬ 
pecially  the  eight-hour  movement  then  pending,  and  that  some  of  the 
Pinkertons  were  their  tools  to  execute  the  plan.  To  sustain  this  accusa¬ 
tion  I  submit  to  you  the  following  facts:  Just  exactly  four  days  before  the 
grand  strike  for  eight  hours  throughout  the  United  States,  and  only  one 
week  before  the  Haymarket  tragedy,  the  New  York  Times,  one  of  the  lead¬ 
ing  organs  of  railroad,  bank,  coal,  telegraph  and  telephone  monopoly,  pub¬ 
lished  the  following  notice,  under  date  of  April  25,  1886,  in  an  editorial  on 
the  condition  of  the  market  and  the  causes  of  the  existing  decline  and  the 
panicky  symptoms  which  existed.  The  New  York  Times  says:  “The  strike 
question  is,  of  course,  the  dominant  one,  and  is  disagreeable  in  a  variety  of 
ways.  A  short  and  easy  way  to  settle  it  is  urged  in  some  quarters,  which 
is  to  indict  for  conspiracy  every  man  who  strikes  and  summarily  lock  him 
up.  This  method  would  undoubtedly  strike  a  wholesome  terror  into  the 
hearts  of  the  working  classes.  Another  way  suggested  is  to  pick  out  the 
leaders  and  make  such  an  example  of  them  as  would  scare  others  into  sub¬ 
mission.”  This  was  the  25th  of  April,  an  editorial  in  the  New  York  Times, 
written  in  view  of  the  contemplated  strike  on  the  1st  of  May  for  eight 
hours.  The  New  York  Tribune,  now  no  longer  the  oracle  of  the  great 
American  tribune,  Horace  Greeley,  that  defender  of  oppressed  humanity,  but 
the  servile  organ  of  the  most  oppressive  forms  of  monopoly,  said  just  about 
this  time  in  an  editorial :  “The  best  policy  would  be  to  drive  workingmen 
into  open  mutiny  against  the  law.”  The  New  York  Herald,  at  that  date 
suggested  by  its  contemporaries  to  make  examples  of  the  leaders  in  the 
short  hour  movement,  said :  “Two  hours  taken  from  ten  hours  of  labor 
throughout  the  United  States  by  the  proposed  short  hour  movement  would 
make  a  difference  annually  of  hundreds  of  millions  in  value,  both  to  the 
capital  invested  in  industries  and  to  existing  stock.”  The  issue  of  the  hour, 
then,  with  the  New  York  and  Chicago  Stock  Exchanges  and  Board  of  Trade 
and  Produce  Exchanges  was  how  to  preserve  the  steadiness  of  the  market 
and  maintain  the  fictitious  values  then  and  there  rapidly  falling  under  the 
paralyzing  influence  of  the  simultaneous  eight-hour  demand  throughout  the 
United  States. 

Your  honor,  so  common  is  this  impression  among  people,  so  common  is 
this  belief  among  the  labor  organizations  and  workingmen  of  this  country, 
that  I  wish  to  impress  upon  you  the  view  which  I  present.  I  am  a  member 
of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  that  is  an  organization  of  nearly  a  million  Amer¬ 
ican  workingmen.  I  am  a  member  of  my  union,  the  Printers’  Union,  and 
have  been  for  fourteen  years  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  This  is  a  national  and 
international  organization  with  some  sixty  odd  thousand  members  in  the 
United  States.  These  organizations  publish  a  great  many  newspapers  in 
America,  and  every  single  one  of  them  believes  that  that  bomb  at  the  Hay¬ 
market  was  instigated  by  the  monopolists  to  break  down  the  eight-hour 
movement.  Hear  our  side.  You  have  heard  the  Citizens’  Association’s  side 
of  this  question,  you  have  heard  the  bankers’  side,  you  have  heard  the  rail¬ 
way  magnates’  side,  you  have  heard  the  Board  of  Trade’s  side;  I  ask  you 


94 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


now  to  listen  also  to  the  side  of  the  workers.  I  might  read  you  here  extract 
after  extract  from  these  papers  to  show  you  that  what  I  state  is  true.  I 
will  read  you  one  among  the  many  I  have.  The  Knights  of  Labor,  a  paper 
printed  in  the  city  of  Chicago  by  the  Knights  of  Labor,  says:  “It  would 
seem  that  Pinkerton’s  Detective  Agency  has  contracted  to  carry  out  this  pol¬ 
icy,  and  to  at  least  make  the  public  believe  that  workingmen  are  rebels 
against  the  law.  It  may  not  be  long  until  people  will  see  that  those  detective 
gangs,  instead  of  being  gangs  of  peace,  are  really  the  agencies  of  monopolists 
to  trump  up  charges  and  produce  public  sentiment  against  the  popular  move¬ 
ments  of  the  people.”  Now,  on  this  subject,  a  paper  printed  at  Marinette, 
Wis.,  the  Marinette  Eagle,  says :  “The  blowing  up  of  the  street  cars  in  St. 
Louis  by  dynamite  during  the  strike  there  last  summer  was  directly  traceable 
to  Pinkerton’s  agents,  who  put  up  the  job.  Gould’s  officials  once  tore  down  and 
destroyed  a  telegraph  pole,  and  the  satanic  press  made  but  a  feeble  remon¬ 
strance  while  the  perpetrators  of  the  dastardly  act  were  never  prosecuted, 
and  yet  the  wage  earners  are  called  Anarchists.”  As  I  said  before,  I  could 
quote  and  take  up  a  great  deal  of  time  in  quoting  and  reading  the  sentiments 
of  anti-monopoly,  greenback,  labor,  Knights  of  Labor,  Trade  Union  and 
Socialist  newspapers,  holding  the  monopolists  responsible  for  this  act  in  the 
United  States.  I  will  not  take  up  your  time,  but  I  will  call  your  attention 
in  this  connection  to  one  thing. 

In  the  strike  down  there  at  East  St.  Louis  last  summer,  where  the  rail¬ 
road  companies  called  for  “men  of  grit,”  and  advertised  to  pay  men  of  grit 
“that  meant  business”  five  dollars  a  day,  they  got  a  lot  of  men,  and  these 
men  fired  upon  people  that  were  walking  along  peaceably  on  a  railroad  track 
in  East  St.  Louis,  and  killed  seven  men  and  one  woman.  Those  men  were 
in  the  pay  of  this  pool  of  railways.  The  grand  jury  of  St.  Louis  refused  to 
indict  those  men  even,  you  understand,  refused  even  to  indict  them ;  and  they 
were  sent  home  with  pay  and  honor.  But  here  in  Chicago  a  mass-meeting  of 
workingmen  occurs,  and  at  that  meeting  there  is  a  bomb  thrown ;  some  men 
are  killed.  The  deed  is  fastened  upon  the  men  who  spoke  at  that  meeting, 
and  they  are  made  responsible  for  it,  and  they  are  brought  in  here  and  rail¬ 
roaded  through  in  double-quick  time  to  the  scaffold,  and,  your  honor,  will 
you  now  refuse  to  give  us  a  chance  to  have  this  matter  heard  fairly,  to  give 
us  a  chance  in  a  new  trial?  The  charge  made  by  the  labor  papers  that  the 
monopolists  were  at  the  bottom  of  the  Haymarket  tragedy,  and  that  the 
Pinkertons  were  employed  to  carry  it  out,  supplies  the  key  to  the  solution  of 
the  mystery  as  to  who  did  throw  that  bomb,  for  it  has  not  been  proven  upon 
one  of  these  defendants,  without  contradicting  the  history  of  that  night,  as 
given  by  Bonfield  to  the  Times  reporter,  and  also  by  Lieutenant  Haas,  Whit¬ 
ing,  Allen,  the  reporter,  and  seven  witnesses,  all  told,  for  the  State,  and 
Burnett,  Taylor  and  Simonson,  and  a  number  of  witnesses  for  the  defense. 
It  rests  solely  upon  the  impeached,  unsupported,  the  perjured,  paid-for  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  perjured  villain,  Gilmer.  That  is  all  the  thread  that  connects 
it.  Now,  who  will  believe  his  silly  story  that  one  of  these  men  or  myself  had 
any  knowledge  of  the  party  who  hurled  the  deadly  bomb  on  its  awful  mis¬ 
sion  of  death?  It  rests  on  Gilmer’s  testimony  alone. 

The  New  York  Times  of  April  27  urged  as  an  easy  way  to  settle  the 
eight-hour  movement  to  pick  out  the  leaders  and  make  such  an  example  of 
them  as  to  .  scare  the  others  into  submission.  The  wicked  cabal  of  monop¬ 
olists,  with  an  organ  capable  of  making  such  an  utterance  and  giving  such 
atrocious  advice,  is  capable  of  putting  it  into  execution,  and  force  was  to  be 
used  if  blood  flowed  and  the  innocent  perished.  The  McCormick  difficulty 
of  the  day  before,  where  unarmed  working  people  were  attacked  by  the 
police,  transpired  within  five  days  of  this  threat  in  the  east.  Stocks  went 
down.  The  great  commercial  stock  centers  were  convulsed  with  apprehen¬ 
sions  of  a  swift  decline  in  values  if  the  eight-hour  strike  succeeded.  The 
wheels  of  industry  remained  paralyzed  by  the  thousands  of  laborers  who 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


95 


were  out  making  the  strike  in  favor  of  the  eight-hour  movement.  Some¬ 
thing  must  be  done  to  stop  this  movement,  and  it  was  felt  that  its  strongest 
impulse  was  at  the  west,  where  forty  thousand  men  were  on  a  strike  for 
eight  hours  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  in  order  to  make  such  an  example 
of  them — to  quote  the  language  of  the  Times — as  to  scare  the  others  into 
submission,  I  repeat,  that  the  men  in  New  York,  capable  of  making  such  a 
suggestion,  are  capable  of  carrying  it  out,  of  putting  it  into  execution.  Now, 
isn’t  that  a  fair  presumption?  Was  it  not  worth  hundreds  of  millions  of 
dollars  to  them  annually  to  have  it  done?  Pinkerton’s  agency,  in  my  opinion, 
contracted  to  carry  it  out;  they  have  done  such  things  on  previous  occasions. 
Often  before  have  they  done  such  things ;  it  has  been  proven  on  them  in 
numerous  parallel  cases  of  conspiracy  to  bring  odium  upon  popular  move¬ 
ments  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  and  I  read  to  you  that  official  circular  of. 
Pinkerton’s  offering  himself  to  monopolists  who  wanted  just  such  con¬ 
spirators  and  schemes  as  were  laid  down  by  the  Herald  of  New  York,  and 
the  Times ,  Tribune  and  other  papers.  The  Pinkertons,  in  their  circular  ad¬ 
dressed  to  these  monopolists,  said  they  had  the  men  ready;  they  were  pre¬ 
pared  to  furnish  the  information,  and  they  could  build  up  and  provide  a 
conspiracy  that  would  break  down  any  contemplated  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
men  to  receive  better  pay  or  an  improvement  in  their  condition.  That  is 
Pinkerton’s  own  circular.  He  would  carry  out  that  which  he  proposes  to 
carry  out.  He  offers  himself  for  sale  to  do  that  kind  of  work;  he  openly 
declares  in  the  circular  that  that  is  his  business ;  that  he  makes  his  living  and 
his  money  by  that  occupation. 

Nor  are  we  wanting  in  the  clear  links  of  circumstantial  evidence  to  point 
to  the  culprits  who  will  yet  call  upon  the  rocks  to  hide  them  from  the  wrath 
of  an  outraged  people.  There  is  in  the  possession  of  this  court  in  this  case 
on  file  the  sworn  testimony  of  John  Philip  DeLuce  of  Indianapolis,  a  saloon 
keeper,  whose  story  was  printed  in  the  papers  at  the  time  he  first  made  it 
public,  in  May  of  this  year.  He  swears  that  at  7  o’clock  one  morning  in 
May,  this  year,  an  unknown  man  wearing  a  mustache,  dressed  in  dark 
clothes,  five  feet  five  or  five  feet  six  inches  in  height,  came  to  his  place,  and 
setting  a  small  satchel  on  the  bar,  asked  for  a  drink.  Taking  a  drink,  the 
customer  said  he  came  from  New  York,  was  on  his  way  to  Chicago,  and  the 
stranger  closed  with  the  remark  that  the  saloon  keeper  would  shortly  hear  of 
trouble  in  Chicago.  Pointing  to  his  satchel  he  said :  “I  have  got  some¬ 
thing  in  there  that  will  work;  you  will  hear  of  it.”  Turning  at  the  door  as 
he  departed,  he  held  up  his  satchel,  and,  pointing  at  it,  remarked:  “You 
will  hear  of  it  soon.”  Shortly  after  this  episode  the  news  of  the  Haymarket 
tragedy  reached  DeLuce.  The  deponent  appeals  to  a  certain  Oscar  Smith  as 
a  witness  to  this  conversation,  and  Smith  follows  with  an  affidavit  to  the 
truth  of  this  statement;  that  was  away  back  in  May.  Now,  if  this  is  to  be 
a  case  of  conjecture,  if  this  is  to  be  a  case  of  opinion,  I  submit  if  that  man’s 
testimony  is  not  as  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  this  court  as  is  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Harry  Gilmer.  Or,  if  your  honor  still  assumes  that  we  instigated 
some  one  else  to  hurl  the  bomb,  I  submit  if  the  threats  of  the  monopolist 
papers,  and  the  proposals  of  Pinkerton  to  carry  them  out,  do  not  show  that 
some  mercenary  in  their  employ  performed  the  deed  resulting  in  the  Hay- 
market  tragedy.  The  Pinkerton  force  advertises  to  carry  on  this  kind  of 
work.  Pinkerton  advertises  in  his  circular  that  he  is  ready  to  do  this  kind 
of  a  job.  The  New  York  Herald  and  New  York  Times  say  the  market  is 
going  down  in  consequence  of  the  contemplated  strike  on  the  first  of  May, 
and  say  that  the  leaders  must  be  arrested  and  thrust  into  prison,  and  thus 
terrify  the  others  into  submission  by  making  examples  of  the  leaders.  This  is 
what  the  Times  says;  this  is  what  Pinkerton  says.  About  this  time  some 
one,  as  testified  to  by  two  reputable  witnesses,  stopped  at  Indianapolis ; 
that  was  in  May;  the  Haymarket  tragedy  was  the  fourth.  This  man  testifies 
to  that  fact.  A  stranger  stops  there.  He  says :  “I  am  going  to  Chicago.  I 


96 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


have  something  that  will  work.  You  will  hear  from  it.”  The  man  was  in 
his  cups,  no  doubt ;  probably  he  drank  too  much.  The  Pinkertons  are  not  all 
temperance  men ;  they  sometimes  take  a  little,  and  sometimes  possibly  take 
a  little  too  much ;  possibly  he  talked  a  little  more  than  he  ought  to  have 
talked ;  possibly  he  didn’t  care,  but  at  any  rate  it  is  sworn  to  that  he  said  it ; 
he  came  to  Chicago,  and  the  bomb  was  heard  from  and  heard  around  the 
world.  Your  honor,  is  this  an  unreasonable  assumption?  It  is  far  more 
likely,  much  more  reasonable  than  your  honor’s  surmise  that  I  instigated 
some  one  to  do  it.  Is  this  not  within  the  possibility  of  human  events? 
Might  this  not  be  the  case?  Is  it  proven,  your  honor,  incontestibly  and 
incontrovertibly,  that  it  was  not  done  by  this  man,  that  it  was  not  done  by 
a  Pinkerton?  Is  it  proven  beyond  any  possibility  of  a  doubt  that  I  and  some 
of  these  men  here  threw  that  bomb,  or  knew  of  its  being  thrown?  It  is  not 
established.  The  testimony  does  not  show  it. 

These  squealers  for  the  State,  Waller  and  Schroeder,  both  state  that  this 
meeting  was  for  defense,  that  it  had  no  reference  to  the  Haymarket,  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it ;  they  were  not  even  to  go  there ;  there  was  no  dif¬ 
ficulty  expected  there.  These  are  the  State’s  own  witnesses  and  against  the 
testimony  of  Gilmer,  that  Spies  lit  the  bomb,  which  is  ridiculous  in  itself, 
absurd,  the  very  idea  of  such  a  thing.  Mr.  Bonfield  and  Lieutenant  Haas 
said  that  the  bomb  was  thrown  south  of  the  alley  about  fifteen  feet,  and 
Burnett  comes  upon  the  stand — a  man  who  is  unimpeached — and  swears  that 
he  stood  by  the  man  who  did  throw  the  bomb,  and  saw  him  light  and  throw 
it.  All  this  against  Gilmer,  the  affidavit  of  DeLuce,  and  the  statements  of  the 
witnesses  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution.  I  submit  that  we,  for  this  reason 
are  entitled  to,  and  have  a  right  to  stand  here  and  claim  a  new  hearing  be¬ 
fore  you.  I  am  told  that  it  is  a  statement  from  the  prefecture  of  the  Paris 
police,  that  the  police  themselves  instigate  troubles  often  to  bring  about  cer¬ 
tain  results.  In  police  circles  such  persons  are  known  as  procurators  or 
provocatives.  I  don’t  know  whether  this  is  true  or  not.  You  are  a  judge  and 
a  court;  you  are  familiar  with  these  things.  Now,  this  description  of  the 
stranger  dressed  in  dark  clothes,  and  not  tall,  exactly  corresponds  with 
Burnett’s  description  of  the  man  he  saw,  both  light  and  hurl  the  bomb, 
and  Burnett  stood  there.  You  remember  it;  Burnett  was  standing  right 
about  here  when  he  testified ;  he  said  that  he  was  standing  by  the  side  of  the 
man  and  saw  the  man  light  the  bomb,  and  hurl  it  in  that  direction.  It  tal¬ 
lies  with  the  man  sworn  to  here  by  John  Philip  DeLuce,  the  man  called  for 
by  the  New  York  Times,  Herald  and  Tribune  by  implication  at  least,  that 
this  thing  must  be  stopped.  Pinkerton  comes  out  in  a  circular  and  offers  to 
do  this  kind  of  work.  It  is  the  hand  of  the  police.  Now  is  it  anything  be¬ 
yond  human  reason  that  these  men  could  not  carry  out  that  which  they  said 
they  were  ready  to  do — to  do  that  which  they  themselves  claimed  it  would 
be  worth  to  them  millions  to  do?  I  am  not  putting  statements  in  their 
mouths.  They  stated  here  that  they  were  ready  to  do  such  work ;  perhaps 
they  may  have  overdone  the  work ;  perhaps  they  killed  more  men  than  they 
intended  to  kill;  perhaps  that  may  be  true.  Perhaps  they  did  not  intend 
that  it  should  be  so  great  a  sacrifice  as  it  was ;  but  I  will  continue  with 
reference  to  this ;  Burnett’s  description  of  the  identical  man  he  saw  both 
light  and  hurl  the  bomb  thirty-five  feet  south  of  the  alley,  shows  that  the  pre¬ 
diction  of  the  stranger  from  New  York  city,  “You  will  hear  from  it,”  was 
verified  within  twenty-four  hours,  because  it  was  not  a  dynamite  but  an  in¬ 
fernal  bomb,  of  which  this  stranger  boasted  in  his  cups  when  pointing  to  the 
satchel  and  saying,  “I  have  something  in  here  that  will  work;  you  will  hear 
of  it ;  you  will  shortly  hear  of  trouble  in  Chicago,”  speaking  of  the  pending 
troubles  in  this  city. 

Within  twenty- four  hours  after  this  incident  at  Indianapolis,  as  sworn 
to  before  this  court,  the  something  in  that  satchel  was  heard  from,  and  its 
detonation  is  still  ringing  in  the  ears  of  a  startled  world.  The  day  follow- 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


97 


ing,  the  5th  of  May,  the  Daily  News  of  Chicago  published  the  first  description 
in  print  of  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb,  from  one  who  swore  he  was 
neither  a  Socialist,  an  Anarchist,  nor  a  Communist,  but  a  mere  idle  and 
curious  spectator  at  the  meeting.  The  News  said  on  May  5:  “The  police 
have  a  good  description  of  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb  at  the  Anarchists’ 
meeting  last  night.  The  fellow  stood  in  front  of  John  Burnett,  a  candy 
maker  in  the  employ  of  Mr.  Berry,  at  the  corner  of  Washington  and  Sanga¬ 
mon  streets,  and  was  seen  by  him  to  throw  the  missile  of  death.  The  atro¬ 
cious  murderer  was  a  young  man,  a  little  above  medium  height,  and  well 
dressed.  He  was  seen  to  take  the  bomb  from  his  pocket  and  light  it  just 
as  the  police  drew  near.  Burnett  said  he  stood  wfithin  two  feet  of  the  man, 
and  would  certainly  be  able  to  identify  him  should  he  meet  him  again. 
Hardly  a  moment  elapsed  after  the  bomb  was  lighted  until  the  man  lifted 
his  arm  preparatory  to  casting  it  from  him.  Every  detail  of  this  performance 
was  witnessed  by  Burnett,  who  did  not  know  what  to  make  of  this  strange 
action.  Presently  the  fuse  attached  to  the  bomb  commenced  to  burn,  and 
then,  for  the  first  time,  Burnett  realized  wrhat  was  about  to  happen.  The 
man,  with  a  quick  jerk  of  his  arm,  sent  the  bomb  flying  through  the  air,  and 
the  next  instant  turned  to  run.  Burnett  attempted  to  follow,  but  a  stray  bul¬ 
let  struck  him  in  the  arm  and  he  fell  to  the  sidewalk.  When  he  got  up  all 
was  confusion.  The  foregoing  is  the  substance  of  the  story  told  the  reporter 
this  morning.  Detectives  were  sent  out  to  hunt  Burnett,  but  they  were  un¬ 
able  to  find  him.” 

Your  honor,  this  was  the  fifth  day  of  May,  the  day  following  the  Hay- 
market  affair.  Mr.  Burnett  was  found  and  repeated  the  above  facts  to  the 
district  attorney,  reaffirming  the  statement  to  which  he  subsequently  swore 
in  court  for  the  defense,  that  the  strange  man  stood  thirty-five  feet  south  of 
the  alley;  that  he  saw  him  light  the  fuse  and  then  throw  the  bomb;  that  he 
wore  dark  clothes ;  and  it  was  proven  on  the  trial  that  Rudolph  Schnaubelt, 
the  man  Gilmer  implicated,  wore  light  clothes  that  night,  and  this  Pinkerton 
man  had  a  mustache  and  no  chin  or  side  whiskers,  while  Schnaubelt,  the 
Anarchist  had  both;  and  he  wTas  a  man  of  medium  size,  whereas  Schnaubelt  is 
noted  for  his  great  height;  he  is  six  feet  two  inches.  The  district  attorney 
had  to  stultify  his  own  witnesses  by  the  unsupported,  manufactured,  per¬ 
jured  evidence  of  Gilmer,  because  for  forty  pieces  of  silver,  he  was  willing 
to  swear  that  Spies  lit  the  fuse  while  another  man  threw  the  bomb — a  very 
tall  man  in  height,  in  light  clothes,  with  a  light  or  sandy  beard.  Gilmer 
swore  that  when  Fielden  was  speaking  he  was  looking  for  a  party  he  ex¬ 
pected  to  find  there,  “and  I  went  back  in  the  alley  between  the  Crane  build¬ 
ing  and  the  building  on  the  south  of  it.  I  stopped  in  the  alley  and  noticed 
some  parties  in  conversation  across  the  alley  on  the  south  side.  Some  one 
said:  ‘Here  come  the  police.’  There  was  a  man  who  jumped  from  the 
wagon  down  to  the  parties  somewhere  standing  on  the  south  side  of  the  al¬ 
ley,  and  lit  a  match  and  touched  off  something  or  other,  and  the  man  gave  a 
couple  of  steps  forward  and  tossed  it  over  into  the  street.”  Side  by  side 
with  this,  we  give  the  precise  words  of  Mr.  Bonfield,  as  published  in  the 
Chicago  Times  of  May  5,  to  a  knot  of  reporters  gathered  around  him  at  the 
station  house  half  an  hour  after  the  tragedy  occurred.  He  is  reported  in 
the  Times  of  May  5  to  have  said:  “The  exact  scene  of  the  explosion  is  near 
the  center  of  the  street  and  exactly  opposite  the  alley  on  the  east  side  which 
separates  No.  9  South  Desplaines  street  from  Crane  Brothers’  foundry.  At 
intervals  between  this  alley  and  Randolph  street  there  are  large,  heavy,  box¬ 
like  frames  at  the  edge  of  the  sidewalk,  and  it  is  here  where  the  bomb  was 
thrown.”  Lieutenant  Haas  located  the  spot  there  also  as  some  fifteen  feet 
south  of  the  alley,  not  in  the  alley,  as  Gilmer  would  have  it.  Yes,  the  pre¬ 
diction  of  the  Indianapolis  stranger  was  verified.  The  bomb  was  heard  from, 
and  heard  around  the  world.  The  purpose  avowed  in  the  New  York  city 
papers  to  pick  out  the  leaders  and  make  such  examples  of  them  as  to  scare 


98 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


the  others  into  submission,  was  put  into  successful  execution,  and  well  was 
the  diabolical  and  nefarious  plot  executed.  Eight  men —  “leaders” —  three 
labor  editors  and  five  labor  organizers  and  orators — now  before  you,  are 
here  to  receive  sentence  of  death  in  pursuance  of  that  vile  plot,  of  which  the 
Haymarket  tragedy,  in  the  hands  of  a  Pinkerton  detective,  was  the  entering 
wedge;  and  Gilmer’s  testimony  is  but  a  part  of  a  scheme  to  divert  attention 
from  the  evidence  of  twelve  witnesses,  exclusive  of  Bonfield’s,  to  the  Times 
reporter,  that  the  infernal  machine  was  hurled  from  fifteen  to  thirty-five  feet 
south  of  the  alley,  just  where  the  short  man  in  dark  clothes  actually  stood 
when  the  angel  .of  death  was  sped  on  its  infernal  mission,  not  only  to  sacri¬ 
fice  purposely  the  lives  of  the  policemen  on  the  ground,  but  that  the  labor 
leaders  might  be  arrested  and  doomed  to  death  under  a  charge  of  the 
commission  of  the  offense,  in  order,  as  avowed  by  the  New  York  Times,  the 
agent  and  representative  of  the  falling  stock  markets  of  the  east,  to  scare  the 
other  workingmen  into  submission  and  frighten  them  back  into  the  accept¬ 
ance  of  the  ten  hour  plan. 

Your  honor,  if  you  please,  I  would  like  to  take  a  short  recess.  I  am 
much  fatigued.  1  have  a  few  more  words  to  say,  and  I  will  finish  them  this 
afternoon. 

The  Court — I  had  intended  not  to  have  but  one  session  of  the  court  to¬ 
day  ,  there  has  been  now  two  hours  and  three-quarters  this  morning  and  an 
hour  yesterday,  three  hours  and  three-quarters  of  time  spent  upon  that  which, 
as  the  speaker  and  the  auditors  know,  has  had  very  little  to  do  with  the 
question  that  is  before  me,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  I  ought  to  have 
repeated  sessions  of  court  in  listening  to  repetitions  from  newspapers,  etc., 
which  never  could  be  used  upon  any  trial,  never  could  have  been,  and  never 
can  be.  I  would  very  much  prefer  to  finish  up  the  matter.  I  shall  not  re¬ 
strict  you  as  to  time. 

Mr.  Parsons — 1  will  say,  your  honor,  I  am  now  in  the  midst  of  that 
part  of  my  statement  which  refers  more  directly  to  the  Haymarket  matter. 

The  Court — Go  on,  say  all  that  you  wish  to  say. 

[It  was  plain  to  be  seen,  however,  that  the  speaker  was  physically  un¬ 
able  to  “go  on.”] 

Mr.  Parsons — The  absolute  proof  that  the  missile  thrown  was  not  dyna¬ 
mite,  but  what  was  known  in  the  late  civil  war  as  an  infernal  bomb,  is  in  the 
evidence  of  every  surgeon  who  testified  that  all  incisions  were  clean,  and 
that  the  fiesh  was  torn  as  from  an  explosive  in  the  interior.  It  was  testified 
by  these  scientific  men,  your  honor,  that  dynamite  is  percussive,  and  had  a 
shell  the  size  of  Lingg’s  manufacture,  on  exibition  in  evidence,  been  thrown 
in  the  closed  ranks  of  the  police,  as  was  this  infernal  machine,  instead  of 
killing  but  one  on  the  spot,  and  wounding  a  few  others,  it  would  have 
blown  to  unrecognizable  fragments  the  platoons  in  the  vicinity,  and  the 
wounds,  where  there  were  wounds,  would  have  been  as  clean  as  with  solid 
projectiles. 

This  was  an  infernal  bomb  from  New  York,  brought  there  b}'  the  In¬ 
dianapolis  traveler,  and  not  a  dynamite  bomb,  the  descriptions  in  its  effects 
upon  its  victims,  exactly  corresponding  with  the  description  of  those  ex¬ 
plosives,  when  once  used  in  the  battle  on  the  Potomac.  The  hollow  bullets 
within  the  shell,  after  entering  the  victim,  exploded,  lacerating  the  flesh  and 
inflicting  ugly  internal  and  really  infernal  wounds. 

But,  dynamite  is  an  explosive  which  annihilates  its  victims.  All  experi¬ 
ment  and  experience  demonstrates  that  fact.  The  State  of  Illinois,  to  convict 
any  man  for  using  a  dynamite  bomb  at  the  Haymarket,  must  show  that  it 
was  dynamite ;  because  the  absolutely  necessary  link  to  connect  these  defend¬ 
ants  with  the  explosion  (and  especially  Lingg,  whom  they  charge,  and  are 
going  to  hang,  for  merely  its  supposed  manufacture  by  him),  is  the  proof  that 
it  was  a  dynamite  bomb,  and  not  an  infernal  machine,  as  they  were  called  in 
war  times.  The  positive  proof  that  it  was  not  such  a  bomb  as  Lingg  made, 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


99 


lies  in  the  fact  that  but  one  man  was  killed  outright,  and  others  being  merely 
wounded,  though  the  bomb  fell  between  two  close  platoons  of  heavily  massed 
men. 

Mark,  sir,  dynamite  is  an  explosive  which  annihilates  its  victims.  A 
pound  displaces  the  air  within  a  radius  of  one  thousand  feet.  The  adjacent 
platoon  would  have  been  blown,  as  we  have  already  said,  into  unrecognizable 
atoms,  had  it  been  a  Lingg  dynamite  bomb.  I  cite  the  case  of  France,  and 
Doran,  and  Berrige,  at  Warren,  Pennsylvania.  In  each  case  the  singular 
characteristic  of  their  death,  is  the  fact  of  the  complete  annihilation  of  matter, 
especially  of  the  human  body.  Beside  human,  the  iron  frames  of  wagons, 
and  even  ponderous  nitro  glycerine  safes,  have  been  removed  from  human 
vision  as  effectually  as  if  they  had  never  been  formed. 

This  is  not  merely  circumstantial  evidence.  It  is  proof  positive  that  it 
was  not  a  dynamite  bomb,  such  as  the  alleged  conspirators  distributed  at  the 
Monday  night  meeting  of  the  armed  group,  which  did  not  attend  the  Hay- 
market,  Lingg  himself  being  absent  some  miles  distant.  It  is  confirmation 
strong  as  proof  of  Holy  Writ  that  the  agency  used  to  destroy  our  lives  and 
the  eight  hour  movement  was  a  New  York  infernal  machine. 

Six  of  these  condemned  men  were  not  even  present  at  the  Haymarket 
meeting  when  the  tragedy  occurred.  One  of  them  was  five  miles  away  at  the 
Deering  Harvester  Works  in  Lake  View,  addressing  a  mass  meeting  of 
2,000  workingmen.  Another  was  at  home  in  bed  and  knew  not  of  the  meet¬ 
ing  being  held  at  all  until  the  next  day.  These  facts  your  honor,  stand  un¬ 
contradicted  before  this  court.  Only  one  witness — Gilmer — and  his  testimony 
is  overwhelmingly  impeached,  as  I  remarked  before — connected  the  other 
two — two  only — of  these  men  with  the  tragedy  at  the  Haymarket  at  all. 

Now,  with  these  facts,  the  attempt  to  make  out  a  case  of  conspiracy 
against  us  is  a  contemptible  farce.  What  were  the  facts  testified  to  by  the 
two  so-called  informers?  They  said  that  two  of  these  defendants  were 
present  at  the  so-called  conspiracy  meeting  Monday  night.  What  then  have 
you  done  with  the  other  six  men  who  were  not  members — who  were  not 
present,  and  did  not  know  of  the  meeting  being  held  Monday  night?  These 
two  so-called  informers  testified  that  at  the  so-called  conspiracy  meeting  of 
May  3,  it  was  resolved  that  in  the  future,  when  police  and  militia  should  at¬ 
tack  and  club  and  kill  workingmen  at  their  meetings,  then,  and  then  only, 
they  were  in  duty  bound  to  help  defend  these  working  people  against  such 
unlawful,  unrighteous,  and  outrageous  assaults.  That  was  all  that  was  said 
or  done.  Was  that  a  conspiracy?  If  it  was,  your  honor,  it  was  a  con¬ 
spiracy  to  do  right  and  oppose  what  is  wrong. 

But  your  sentence  says  that  it  is  criminal  for  the  workingmen  to  resolve 
to  defend  their  lives  and  their  liberties  and  their  happiness  against  brutal, 
bloody  and  unlawful  assaults  of  the  police  and  militia. 

Look  at  this  jury  for  a  moment,  observe  the  material  of  which  it  was 
composed.  There  was  juryman  Todd;  when  he  was  accepted  on  the  jury  he 
described  himself  as  a  clothing  salesman,  and  a  Baptist.  As  soon  as  the  ver¬ 
dict  had  been  rendered  he  was,  of  course,  interviewed.  He  said : 

“This  was  a  picked  jury;  they  were  all  gentlemen.  You  see,  Major  Cole, 
who  was  the  first  juror  accepted,  and  myself  took  the  other  jurors  in  hand  as 
soon  as  they  were  accepted:’  Major  Cole,  you  will  remember,  described 
himself  as  a  bookkeeper,  and  an  Episcopalian.  Todd,  in  his  interview,  went 
on  to  tell  how,  notwithstanding  their  virtuous  professions,  when  tr  ey  went 
to  the  jury  room  they  played  cards ;  they  also  played  the  fiddle  and  guitar 
and  piano,  and  sang  songs.  In  fact,  these  gentlemen  had  a  very  merry 
time  of  it  while  engaged  in  the  trial  of  the  seven  Anarchists  for  their  lives, 
and  they  had  to  bring  a  verdict  as  becomes  gentlemen,  of  course.  What  with 
songs,  music,  carriage  drives  and  high  life  at  a  fashionable  hotel,  parlor 
theatricals  in  the  evening,  these  twelve  gentlemen  managed  to  kill  their  time, 
and  finally  returned  a  verdict  to  kill  these  abominable  seven  Anarchists, 


100 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


these  workingmen,  whose  lives,  of  course,  were  beneath  the  serious  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  elegant  gentlemen — these  nice  gentlemen. 

Before  the  trial  began,  during  its  prosecution,  and  since  its  close,  a 
satanic  press  has  shrieked  and  howled  itself  wild  like  ravenous  hyenas  for 
the  blood  of  these  eight  workingmen.  Now  this  subsidized  press,  in  the  pay 
of  monopoly  and  of  labor  enslavers,  commanded  this  court  and  commanded 
this  jury  and  this  prosecution  to  convict  us. 

As  a  fitting  climax  to  this  damnable  conspiracy  against  our  lives  and 
liberty,  what  follows?  [The  speaker  raised  his  arms  and  pointed  his  finger 
to  the  statue  of  the  blind  “Goddess  of  Justice”  over  the  judge’s  stand.]  Oh! 
hide  your  eyes  now ;  hide  them !  hide  them  !  It  is  well  that  your  eyes  are 
bandaged  and  your  vision  obscured,  for  could  you  have  witnessed  the  cor¬ 
ruption  and  infamy  practiced  in  your  name  during  this  trial,  you  would  have 
fled  from  this  temple  forever !  As  a  fitting  climax  to  this  damnable  con¬ 
spiracy  against  our  lives  and  liberty  some  of  Chicago’s  millionaires  pro¬ 
posed  to  raise  a  purse  of  $100,000  and  present  it  to  the  jury  for  their  verdict 
against  us.  This  was  done,  as  everybody  knows,  in  the  last  days  of  the  trial, 
and  since  the  verdict,  so  far  as  anybody  knows  to  the  contrary,  this  blood 
money  has  been  paid  over  to  that  jury;  besides,  these  jurymen,  since  the  ren¬ 
dition  of  their  verdict,  have  been  feted.  They  have  been  wined,  and  dined, 
and  banqueted,  and  costly  gifts  have  been  bestowed  upon  them  with  a  lavish 
hand  by  the  enemies  of  human  rights  and  human  equality.  “Oh!  shame, 
where  is  thy  blush !  Oh !  virtue,  hast  thou  fled  to  brutish  beasts !” 

No  man  was  permitted  to  serve  on  this  jury  who  was  tainted  with  the 
slightest  sympathy  for  the  working  class  in  their  struggles  against  monopoly. 
But  to  every  one  of  the  1,139  men,  who  were  summoned  as  jurors  by  the 
State’s  attorney,  the  State’s  attorney  put  these  questions :  “Are  you  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  a  trade  and  labor  union?  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Knights  of  La¬ 
bor?  Have  you  any  sympathy  with  Communists,  Anarchists,  and  Socialists?” 
And  every  one  who  answered  in  the  affirmative  was  summarily  told  that  he 
was  excused.  Only  five  persons  out  of  1,200  jurymen  who  were  summoned 
were  among  the  list;  I  mean  there  were  only  five  workingmen  of  the  1,200 
called.  The  deputy  sheriff,  Mr.  Rice — I  believe  that  is  his  name — it  has  been 
sworn  to  in  our  plea  for  a  new  trial,  your  honor,  that  he  summoned  this  jury, 
and  the  affidavit  is  on  file  before  you  that  Deputy  Sheriff  Rice,  who  had 
charge  of  the  summoning  of  the  jurymen,  declared  he  would  summon  those 
who  would  hang  us  to  death.  Such  infamy  is  unparalleled. 

The  jury  was  a  packed  one;  the  jury  was  composed  of  men  who  arrogate 
to  themselves  the  right  to  dictate  and  rob  the  wage  workers  whom  they  re¬ 
gard  as  their  hired  men ;  they  regard  workingmen  as  their  inferiors  and  not 
“gentlemen.”  Thus  a  jury  was  obtained,  whose  business  it  was  to  convict 
us  of  Anarchy  whether  they  found  any  proof  of  murder  or  not.  The  whole 
trial  was  conducted  to  condemn  Anarchy.  “Anarchy  is  on  trial,”  said  Air. 
Ingham.  “Hang  these  eight  men  and  save  our  institutions,”  shouted  Grin- 
nell ;  “these  are  the  leaders;  make  examples  of  them,”  yelled  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  in  addressing  the  court  and  jury.  Yes,  we  are  Anarchists,  and  for  this, 
your  honor,  we  stand  condemned.  Can  it  be  that  men  are  to  suffer  death 
for  their  opiniotis?  “These  eight  defendants,”  said  the  State’s  attorney  to 
the  jury,  “were  picked  out  and  indicted  by  the  grand  jury.  They  are  no 
more  guilty  than  are  the  thousands  who  follow  them.  They  were  picked  out 
because  they  were  leaders.”  “Convict  them  and  our  society  is  safe,” 
shouted  the  prosecution.  And  this  in  America,  the  land  for  which  our  fa¬ 
thers  fought  and  freely  shed  their  blood  that  we,  their  posterity,  might  enjoy 
the  right  of  free  speech,  free  press,  and  unmolested  assemblage. 

This  diabolical  conspiracy  against  man’s  inalienable  rights,  finds  its  best 
portrayal  in  the  words  of  State’s  Attorney  Grinnell,  himself  one  of  the  chief 
actors  in  this  gigantic  crime.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  he  was  inter- 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


101 


viewed  by  the  agent  of  the  Associated  Press,  who  sent  out  a  full  report, 
from  which  I  quote  as  follows : 

“Do  you  propose  to  go  ahead  at  once  and  bring  other  leaders  of  Anarchy 
to  the  halter?’*  Mr.  Grinnell  replied:  “We  intend  to  leave  the  Anarchists 
alone  for  a  time,  and  see  whether  they  have  now  learned  what  the  right  of 
free  speech  means  in  this  country,  and  whether  they  still  hold  it  to  mean 
that  they  may  incite  men  to  riot,  murder  and  plunder.  But  I  will  say  this : 
We  have  had  in  this  trial  men  who  were  called  ‘squealers’  and  ‘informers,’ 
three  or  four  of  them.  From  these  men  we  have  obtained  the  names  of  all 
the  principal  Anarchists  in  Chicago.  We  have  them  on  the  list,  and  the 
Anarchists  don’t  know  it.  1  want  them  to  know  it  now;  I  want  them  to 
know  that  they  are  marked  men,  and  if  ever  a  hand  is  raised  to  injure  a 
hair  of  the  heads  of  any  juror  or  person  connected  with  the  trial  that  is  now 
over,  every  Anarchist  might  as  well  consider  that  his  death  knell  is  sounded. 
We  have  their  names  and  will  bring  every  one  of  them  to  the  gallows.  Let 
them  understand  that.” 

I  suppose  your  honor  has  attended  the  opera  bouffe  called  “The  Mikado.” 
You  will  recollect  that  the  lord  high  executioner  of  the  Mikado  of  Japan, 
like  Grinnell,  had  them  all  on  the  list.  Grinnell  proposes  to  continue  to  per¬ 
petrate  acts  which  Mayor  Harrison  says  could  not  be  done  in  any  monarchical 
country  with  safety,  and  which,  if  done  in  London,  would  shake  Queen  Vic¬ 
toria’s  throne  itself.  Mr.  Grinnell  proposes  to  keep  this  racket  up,  to  con¬ 
tinue  it  ad  infinitum.  This  man,  clothed  with  a  little  brief  authority,  spreads 
himself  like  a  green-bay  tree  and  gasconades  with  the  fulsomeness  of  an 
autocrat.  He  would  with  the  mailed  hand  of  power  silence  the  people’s  dis¬ 
content  and  preserve  law  and  order  with  silence  of  the  graveyard  and  the 
order  that  reigned  in  Warsaw.  At  the  behoof  of  this  petty  usurper  the 
Alarm,  the  paper  of  which  I  was  an  editor,  was  seized  and  suppressed.  This 
man  seized  it ;  he  destroyed  the  files  and  the  documents  connected  with  the 
office.  He  did  the  same  with  the  German  workingmen’s  daily  paper,  the 
Arbeiter-Zeitung,  and  for  several  weeks,  yes,  several  weeks,  this  man  com¬ 
pelled  its  publishers  and  its  editor  to  submit  their  editorials  to  him  for  his 
press  censorship,  he  running  his  blue  pencil  through  such  articles  as  his 
majesty  Grinnell  saw  fit  to  interdict. 

In  an  interview  concerning  this  matter,  published  in  the  Chicago  papers, 
Grinnell  said :  “Very  rigid  measures  will  be  adopted  toward  the  Arbeiter- 
Zeitung.  Any  reference  to  alleged  bribery  of  the  jury  or  other  incendiary 
utterances  will  cause  its  instant  suppression.  We  are  going  to  see  this  mat¬ 
ter  clear  through.” 

Thus  the  men  who  are  selected  to  enforce  the  law  and  who  are  sworn 
and  paid  to  obey  it  and  enforce  it  trample  the  law  and  the  constitution  under 
their  feet  at  the  behest  of  a  few  rich  men  when  they  find  it  convenient  to 
punish  the  poor.  Thus  the  blasphemous  conspiracy  against  free  speech,  free 
press  and  public  assemblage  was  concocted,  engineered  and  consummated. 

In  the  effort  of  the  prosecution  to  hold  up  our  opinions  to  public  execra¬ 
tion  they  lost  sight  of  the  charge  of  murder.  Disloyalty  to  their  class,  and 
their  boasted  civilization  is  in  their  eyes  a  far  greater  crime  than  murder. 
Anarchy,  in  the  language  of  Grinnell,  is  simply  a  compound  of  robbery,  in¬ 
cendiarism  and  murder.  Now,  your  honor,  this  is  the  official  statement  of  Mr. 
Grinnell,  and  against  his  definition  of  Anarchy  I  would  put  that  of  Mr. 
Webster.  I  think  that  is  pretty  near  as  good  authority  as  that  gentleman’s. 

What  is  Anarchy?  What  is  the  nature  of  the  dreadful  thing — this  An¬ 
archy,  for  the  holding  of  which  this  man  says  we  ought  to  suffer  death?  The 
closing  hours  of  this  trial,  yes,  for  five  days  the  representatives  of  a  privi¬ 
leged,  usurped  power  of  despotism  sought  to  belie,  misrepresent,  and  vilify 
the  doctrine  in  which  I  believe.  Now,  your  honor,  let  me  speak  of  that  for  a 
moment.  What  is  Anarchy?  What  are  its  doctrines — 

General  Parsons — For  which  you  are  called  upon  to  die. 


102 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


Mr.  Parsons — For  which  I  am  called  upon  to  die.  First  and  foremost,  it 
is  our  opinion,  or  the  opinion  of  an  Anarchist,  that  government  is  despotism; 
government  is  an  organization  of  oppression,  and  law,  statute  law,  is  its 
agent.  Anarchy  is  anti-government,  anti-rulers,  anti-dictators,  anti-bosses  and 
drivers.  Anarchy  is  the  negation  of  force;  the  elimination  of  all  authority 
in  social  affairs;  it  is  the  denial  of  the  right  of  domination  of  one  man  over 
another.  It  is  the  diffusion  of  rights,  of  power,  of  duties,  equally  and  freely 
among  all  the  people.  But  Anarchy,  your  honor,  like  many  other  words,  is 
defined  by  Webster’s  dictionary  as  having  two  meanings.  In  one  place  it  is 
defined  to  mean,  “without  rulers  or  governors.”  In  another  place  it  is  de¬ 
fined  to  mean,  “disorder  and  confusion.”  Now,  this  latter  meaning  is  what 
we  call  “capitalistic  Anarchy,”  such  as  is  now  witnessed  in  all  portions  of 
the  world  and  especially  in  this  court  room;  the  former,  which  means  with¬ 
out  rulers,  is  what  we  denominate  Communistic  Anarchy,  which  will  be 
ushered  in  with  the  social  revolution. 

Socialism  is  a  word  which  covers  the  whole  range  of  human  progress 
and  advancement.  Socialism  is  defined  by  Webster — I  think  I  have  a  right 
to  speak  of  this  matter,  because  I  am  tried  here  as  a  Socialist.  T  am  con¬ 
demned  as  a  Socialist,  and  it  has  been  of  Socialism  that  my  friend  Grinnell 
and  these  men  had  so  much  to  say,  and  I  think  it  right  to  speak  before  the 
country,  and  be  heard  in  my  own  behalf,  at  least.  If  you  are  going  to  put 
me  to  death,  then  let  the  people  know  what  it  is  for.  Socialism  is  defined 
by  Webster  as  “a  theory  of  society  which  advocates  a  more  precise,  more 
orderly,  and  more  harmonious  arrangement  of  the  social  relations  of  mankind 
than  has  hitherto  prevailed.”  Therefore  everything  in  the  line  of  progress, 
in  civilization,  in  fact,  is  Socialistic.  There  are  two  distinct  phases  of  So¬ 
cialism  in  the  labor  movement  throughout  the  world  today.  One  is  known 
as  Anarchism,  without  political  government  or  authority,  the  other  is  known 
as  State  Socialism  or  paternalism,  or  governmental  control  of  everything. 
The  State  Socialist  seeks  to  ameliorate  and  emancipate  the  wage  laborers 
by  means  of  law,  by  legislative  enactments.  The  State  Socialists  demand  the 
right  to  choose  their  own  rulers.  Anarchists  would  have  neither  rmers  nor 
law  makers  of  any  kind.  The  Anarchists  seek  the  same  ends  by  the  abroga¬ 
tion  of  law,  by  the  abolition  of  all  government,  leaving  the  people  free  to 
unite  or  disunite,  as  fancy  or  interest  may  dictate,  coercing  no  one,  driving 
no  party. 

Now,  your  honor,  we  are  supported  in  this  position  by  a  very  distin¬ 
guished  man  indeed,  no  less  a  man  than  Buckle,  the  author  of  “The  History 
of  Civilization.”  He  states  that  there  have  been  two  opposing  elements  to 
the  progress  of  civilization  of  man.  The  first  of  these  two  is  the  Church; 
the  Church  which  commands  what  a  man  shall  believe.  And  the  other  is  the 
State,  which  commands  him  what  to  do.  Now,  sir,  Buckle  says  that  the  only 
good  laws  passed  in  the  last  three  or  four  hundred  years  have  been  laws 
that  repealed  other  laws.  That  is  the  view  exactly  of  Anarchists.  Our  belief 
is  that  all  these  laws  should  be  repealed,  and  that  is  the  only  good  legisla¬ 
tion  that  could  possibly  take  place. 

Now,  law  is  license,  and  consequently  despotic.  A  legal  enactment  is 
simply  something  which  authorizes  somebody  to  do  something  to  somebody 
else  or  for  somebody  else  that  he  could  not  do  were  it  not  for  the  statute. 
Now,  then,  the  statute  is  the  divestment  and  the  denial  of  the  right  of 
another,  and  we  hold  that  to  be  wrong;  we  consider  that  the  invasion  of  a 
man’s  natural  right.  Mark  you,  we  do  not  object  to  all  laws;  the  law  which 
is  in  accordance  with  nature  is  good.  The  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
when  it  guarantees  me  the  right  of  free  speech,  a  free  press,  and  of  unmo¬ 
lested  assemblage,  and  the  right  of  self-defense,  is  good,  because  it  sanctions 
it.  Why?  Because  it  is  in  conformity  with  natural  law.  It  doesn’t  recmire 
any  statute  law  to  provide  such  a  safeguard  as  that;  that  is  inalienable,  and 
it  is  a  natural  right,  inherited  by  the  very  fact  of  my  existence,  and  the  mere 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


103 


fact  that  it  is  embraced  in  the  constitution  does  not  make  it  any  more  sacred 
at  all.  On  the  contrary,  it  shows  how  foolish  it  is  to  do  by  constitution  that 
which  kind  mother  Nature  has  already  freely  and  graciously  done  for  us. 
The  more  we  are  governed  the  less  we  are  free.  I  do  not  believe  your  honor 
will  deny  that. 

The  law-abiding  citizen,  especially  if  he  is  called  upon  to  do  something 
under  a  law  that  enslaves  him,  is  an  uncomplaining  slave  to  the  power  that 
governs  him.  Imagine  a  chattel  slave  down  south  who  was  law-abiding, 
who  was  obedient;  whar  does  that  mean?  That  means  he  did  not  have  any 
objection;  he  did  not  have  anything  to  say  against  the  law  that  makes  him 
another  man’s  slave.  Now,  the  workingman  today  in  this  country  who  says 
nothing,  who  makes  no  objection  to  any  of  these  enactments,  with  no  pro¬ 
tests  to  make  at  all  against  these  infamous  things  that  are  practiced  by  leg¬ 
islation,  that  workingman  is  a  law-abiding,  obedient  workingman.  He  is  a 
nice,  quiet,  peaceful,  genteel  citizen. 

Anarchists  are  not  that  kind.  We  object  to  those  laws.  Now,  whether 
the  government  consists  of  one  over  the  million,  or  a  million  over  one,  an 
Anarchist  is  opposed  to  the  rule  of  majorities  as  well  as  minorities.  If  a 
man  has  a  right  he  has  a  right,  whether  that  right  be  denied  by  a  million  or 
by  one.  Right  is  right,  and  the  majority  that  sets  itself  up  to  dictate  to 
minorities  simply  transforms  itself  into  tyrants ;  they  become  usurpers ;  they 
deny  the  natural  right  of  their  fellow-men.  Now,  sir,  this  would  put  an  end 
to  the  law  factory  business.  What  would  become  of  your  law  makers?  Why, 
a  human  law  maker,  your  honor,  in  my  humble  judgment,  is  a  human  hum¬ 
bug.  Yes,  sir,  just  think  of  these  law  factories  that  we  have  throughout  the 
country,  the  legislatures  of  our  States  and  the  Union,  where  they  manufac¬ 
ture  laws  just  as  we  go  to  a  factory  to  manufacture  a  pair  of  boots!  Why, 
your  honor,  the  same  pair  of  boots  won’t  fit  every  man ;  how  can  you  make 
a  law  that  will  apply  to  the  individual  cases  of  each  one? 

Now,  your  honor,  I  suppose  that  you  would  hold,  like  they  did  in  the 
days  of  old — I  don’t  know  whether  you  will  or  not,  but  there  are  some  men 
who  would  hold — that  a  man  who  would  adhere  to  this  kind  of  opinions 
ought  to  die;  that  this  world  has  got  no  use  for  him.  Well,  that  remains  to 
be  seen. 

The  natural  and  the  imprescriptible  right  of  all  is  the  right  of  each  to 
control  oneself.  Anarchy  is  a  free  society  where  there  is  no  concentrated  or 
centralized  power,  no  State,  no  king,  no  emperor,  no  ruler,  no  president,  no 
magistrate,  no  potentate  of  any  character  whatever.  Law  is  the  enslaving 
power  of  man.  Blackstone  defines  the  law  to  be  a  rule  of  action.  I  believe 
that  is  it.  Colonel  Foster,  I  would  like  to  ask  your  opinion  if  that  quotation 
is  correct.  Blackstone  describes  the  law  to  be  a  rule  of  action,  prescribing 
what  is  right  and  prohibiting  what  is  wrong.  Very  true.  Now,  Anarchists 
hold  that  it  is  wrong  for  one  person  to  prescribe  what  is  the  right  action  for 
another  person,  and  then  compel  that  person  to  obey  that  rule.  Therefore, 
right  action  consists  in  each  person  attending  to  his  business  and  allowing 
everybody  else  to  do  likewise.  Whoever  prescribes  a  rule  of  action  for  an¬ 
other  to  obey  is  a  tyrant,  a  usurper,  and  an  enemy  of  liberty.  This  is  pre¬ 
cisely  what  every  statute  does.  Anarchy  is  the  natural  law,  instead  of  the 
man  made  statute,  and  gives  men  leaders  in  the  place  of  drivers  and  bosses. 
All  political  law,  statute  and  common,  gets  its  right  to  operate  from  the 
statute ;  therefore  all  political  law  is  statute  law.  A  statute  law  is  a  written 
scheme  by  which  cunning  takes  advantage  of  the  unsuspecting,  and  provides 
the  inducement  to  do  so,  and  protects  the  one  who  does  it.  In  other  words,  a 
statute  is  the  science  of  rascality  or  the  law  of  usurpation.  If  a  few  sharks 
rob  mankind  of  all  the  earth,  turn  them  all  out  of  house  and  home,  make 
them  ragged  slaves  and  beggars,  and  freeze  and  starve  them  to  death,  still 
they  are  expected  to  obey  the  statute  because  it  is  sacred.  This  ridiculous 
nonsense  that  human  laws  are  sacred  and  that  if  they  are  not  respected  and 


104 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


continued  we  cannot  prosper,  is  the  stupidest  and  most  criminal  nightmare  of 
the  age.  Statutes  are  the  last  and  greatest  curse  of  man,  and  when  de¬ 
stroyed  the  world  will  be  free.  The  statute  book  is  a  book  of  laws  by  which 
one  class  of  people  can  safely  trespass  upon  another.  Without  this  book  one 
person  would  never  dare  to  trespass  upon  the  rights  of  another.  Every  stat¬ 
ute  law  is  always  used  to  oppose  some  natural  law.  (I  am  reading  a  few 
extracts  from  an  editorial  in  the  Alarm.)  A  statute  is  always  used  to  op¬ 
pose  some  natural  law,  or  to  sustain  some  other  equally  vicious  statute.  The 
statute  is  the  great  science  of  rascality  by  which  some  few  trample  upon  and 
enslave  the  many.  There  are  natural  laws  provided  for  every  work  of  man. 
Natural  laws  are  self-operating.  They  punish  all  who  violate  them,  and  re¬ 
ward  all  who  obey  them.  They  cannot  be  repealed,  amended,  dodged,  or 
bribed,  and  it  costs  neither  time,  money,  nor  attention  to  apply  them.  It  is 
time  to  stop  legislating  against  them.  We  want  to  obey  laws,  not  men,  not 
the  tricks  of  men.  Statutes  are  human  tricks.  The  law — the  statute  law — • 
is  the  coward’s  weapon;  the  tool  of  the  thief,  and  more:  the  shield  and 
buckler  of  every  gigantic  villainy,  and  frightful  parent  of  all  crimes.  Every 
great  robbery  that  was  ever  perpetrated  upon  a  people  has  been  by  virtue  of 
and  in  the  name  of  law.  By  this  tool  of  thieves  the  great  mass  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  who  inhabit  our  planet  have  been  robbed  of  their  equal  right  to  the  use 
of  the  soil  and  of  all  other  natural  opportunities.  In  the  name  of  this 
monster  (statute  law)  large  sections  of  our  race  have  been  bought  and  sold 
as  chattels;  by  it  the  vast  majority  of  the  human  race  are  today  held  in  the 
industrial  bondage  of  wage  slavery,  and  in  its  name  our  fair  earth  has  been 
times  without  number  deluged  in  human  blood.  By  the  instrumentality  of 
this  tool,  cowards  and  thieves,  tyrants  and  usurpers  are  robbing  their  fellows 
of  their  substance,  despoiling  them  of  their  natural  rights,  and  depriving  them 
of  liberty.  Man’s  legal  rights  are  everywhere  in  collision  with  man’s  natural 
rights ;  hence  the  deep-rooted  and  widespread  unrest  of  modern  civilization. 
The  only  sacred  right  of  property  is  the  natural  right  of  the  workmgman  to 
the  product,  which  is  the  creation  of  his  labor.  The  legal  right  of  the  cap¬ 
italist  to  rent  and  interest  and  profit  is  the  absolute  denial  of  the  natural 
right  of  labor.  Free  access  to  the  means  of  production  is  the  natural  right 
of  every  man  able  and  willing  to  work.  It  is  the  legal  right  of  the  capital¬ 
ist  to  refuse  such  access  to  labor,  and  to  take  from  the  laborer  all  the  wealth 
he  creates  over  and  above  a  bare  subsistence  for  allowing  him  the  privilege 
of  working. 

A  laborer  has  the  natural  right  to  life,  and  as  life  is  impossible  without 
the  means  of  production  the  equal  right  to  live  involves  an  equal  right  to 
the  means  of  production.  The  legal  right  of  the  capitalist  is  virtually  the 
assertion  that  one  man  has  a  greater  right  to  life  than  another  man,  since  it 
denies  the  equality  of  natural  conditions.  Our  present  social  system,  there¬ 
fore,  is  based  upon  the  legalization  of  robbery,  slavery,  and  murder.  The 
laborer  who  does  not  get  more  than  a  bare  subsistence  as  the  fruit  of  his 
toil  is  robbed.  The  laborer  who  is  forced  to  beg  for  work  and  has  to  accept 
it  on  any  terms  or  starve  is  a  slave.  The  laborer  who,  being  unable  to  get 
work,  but  who  in  turn  has  too  much  manhood  to  beg,  steal,  or  become  a 
pauper,  is  by  the  refined  process  of  slow  starvation  murdered. 

Laws — just  laws — natural  laws — are  not  made,  they  are  discovered  :  law 
enacting  is  an  insult  to  divine  intelligence;  and  law  enforcing  is  the  impeach¬ 
ment  of  God’s  integrity  and  his  power.  I  make,  as  an  Anarchist,  this  declara¬ 
tion  for  the  benefit  of  our  Christian  ministry,  who,  while  professing  loyalty 
to  God’s  laws,  never  forget  to  pray  and  work  for  the  supremacy  of  man’s 
laws  and  man’s  government — those  pious  frauds  who  profess  their  faith  in 
the  “power”  of  God,  while  they  employ  the  police,  the  militia,  and  other 
armed  hirelings  to  enforce  their  man-made  laws  and  maintain  their  “power” 
over  their  fellow-men.  Oh,  consistency,  indeed  thou  art  a  jewel!  These 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


105 


hypocrites  always  did,  and  do  today,  employ  brute  force  to  compel  their 
fellow-men  to  obey  and  serve  them,  while  they  whine  and  snivel  behind  their 
sanctimonious  masks  about  their  “love  of  man  and  the  power  of  God.”  I 
hope  some  of  them  will  preach  in  their  pulpits  next  Sunday  morning  on  this 
topic. 

The  economic  regulates  and  controls  the  social  status  of  man;  the  mode 
and  manner  of  procuring  our  livelihood  affects  our  whole  life;  the  all- 
pervading  cause  is  economic,  not  political,  moral,  or  religious,  and  social 
institutions  of  every  kind  and  degree  result  from,  grow  out  of,  and  are 
created  by  the  economic  or  industrial  regulations  of  society.  Every  human 
being,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  is  affected  and  controlled  by  it  in  what 
they  think,  or  say  or  do.  There  is  no  escape;  no  evasion  from  its  conse¬ 
quences.  It  is  logic.  It  is  cause  and  effect.  Evil  exists  on  every  hand ;  the 
well  disposed,  philanthropic,  and  generous,  and  the  good  seek  relief  from 
these  evil  influences  by  moral  suasion,  by  self-denial,  by  religion,  by  politics, 
etc.,  etc.,  but  in  vain,  in  vain  !  The  evils  remain,  and  not  only  remain,  but 
grow  worse  and  worse.  Why,  if  the  fountain  is  corrupt,  can  the  stream  be; 
pure?  If  the  cause  remains,  must  not  the  effects  follow?  Jails,  judges  and 
executioners,  police,  armies  and  navies,  pestilence,  misery  and  ignorance  and 
debauchery,  and  evils  of  all  kinds  of  high  and  low  degree,  all  flow  from  one 
fountain ;  that  flowing  fountain  of  human  woe  is  the  economic  or  industrial 
subjection  and  enslavement  of  man  to  man.  Every  human  ill  is  produced  by 
the  denial  or  the  violation  of  man’s  natural  rights  or  by  the  neglect  or  refusal 
of  man  to  conform  his  life  to  the  requirements  of  nature.  Wickedness, 
wretchedness,  ignorance,  vice,  crime,  poverty  are  the  penalties  which  nature 
inflicts  upon  her  disobedient  children.  The  natural  man  is  a  happy  man.  He 
is  virtuous  and  right;  truly  so.  Whoever  violates  the  right  of  another,  sooner 
or  later  punishes  himself.  Nature  is  inexorable.  From  her  penalty  there  is 
no  escape.  But  in  a  court  of  law — of  so-called  “justice” — if  you  are  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  Citizens’  Association,  or  if  you  have  a  big  bank  account,  in  other 
words,  if  you  are  a  member  of  the  propertied  class,  you  crawl  out  of  any¬ 
thing  you  want  to,  for  law  is  for  sale ;  that  is  to  say,  whoever  can  purchase 
the  lawyers,  stock  the  jury  and  bribe  the  court,  can  win.  There  is  only  one 
law  for  the  poor — to-wit :  Obey  the  rich. 

The  existing  economic  system  has  placed  on  the  market  for  sale  man’s 
natural  rights.  What  are  these  rights?  Well,  among  the  many  I  will  enu¬ 
merate  one  or  two.  The  right  to  live,  for  instance,  is  an  inalienable  right. 
So,  too,  is  the  right  to  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  Now,  how  can  I 
possess  these  rights  and  enjoy  them,  when  the  very  condition  and  the 
means  for  their  procurement  are  owned  by  and  belong  to  another? 

Shakespeare  makes  Shylock  say  at  the  bar  of  the  Venetian  court,  “You 
do  take  my  life  when  you  take  the  means  whereby  I  live.”  Now,  the  means 
if  life  are  monopolized;  the  necessary  means  for  the  existence  of  all  have 
oeen  appropriated  and  monopolized  by  a  few.  The  land,  the  implements  of 
production  and  communication,  the  resources  of  life  are  now  held  as  private 
property,  and  its  owners  exact  tribute  from  the  propertyless.  In  this  way 
the  privileged  class  become  millionaires.  They  deny  the  equal  right  of  every 
one  to  freely  use  our  natural  inheritance,  the  earth.  The  denial  of  that  rieht 
is  death  to  whom  it  is  denied.  The  right  to  live  is  made  a  privilege  by  law, 
granted  by  law,  which  is  granted  or  denied  by  the  possessor  to  the  dispos¬ 
sessed.  Human  rights  are  for  sale.  “If  thou  wilt  not  work,  neither  shalt 
thou  eat,”  says  the  Scriptures.  This  finds  immunity  among  those  who  can  pay 
for  it.  Those  who  work  eat  not;  and  those  who  eat  work  not.  Thev  do  r>nt 
have  to;  they  hire  some  hungry,  poor  devil  to  work  for  them.  The  hired 
man  whom  the  capitalist  press  gloats  on  the  idea  of,  and  whom  the  pious 
frauds  declare  is  the  dispensation  of  divine  providence,  whom  we  wdl  always 
have  among  us  is  a  social  fungus,  the  outgrowth  of  a  rotten,  corrupt  indus¬ 
trial  regime 


106 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


In  conclusion,  I  will  say,  compulsion  is  slavery,  and  those  disinherited  of 
their  natural  rights  must  hire  out  and  serve  and  obey  the  oppiessing  class  or 
starve.  There  is  no  other  alternative.  Some  things  are  priceless,  chief  among 
which  is  life  and  liberty.  A  freeman  is  not  for  sale  or  hire. 

You  accuse  the  Anarchists  of  using  or  advising  the  use  of  force;  it  is 
false.  “Out  of  your  own  mouth  you  stand  condemned.”  The  present  exist¬ 
ing  state  of  society  is  based  upon  and  maintained  and  perpetuated  by  force. 
This  capitalistic  system  that  we  have  today  would  not  exist  twenty-four 
hours  if  it  were  not  held  together  by  the  bayonets  and  the  clubs  of  the 
militia  and  police.  No,  sir,  it  would  not!  Now,  sir,  we  object  to  this.  We 
protest  against  it.  But  you  accuse  us,  or  the  prosecution  here  accuses  us, 
of  that  very  thing  which  they  themselves  are  guilty  of.  It  is  the  old,  old 
story  of  Aesop’s  fable,  the  lamb  standing  in  the  water  and  the  wolf  above 
him ;  he  looks  up ;  the  water  has  run  down,  the  wolf  stands  above  him ;  he 
looks  down  there  toward  the  lamb,  and  says,  “Ho,  there !  you  are  making 
the  water  muddy.”  The  lamb  observes,  “My  friend,  I  am  below  you  in  the 
stream.”  “That  doesn’t  matter ;  you  are  my  meat,  anyhow.”  And  he  goes 
for  him  and  eats  him  up.  That  is  just  the  way  of  the  capitalist  toward  the 
Anarchist.  You  are  doing  the  very  thing  you  accuse  us  of,  and  against  which 
we  protest.  Now,  any  institution  that  is  based  upon  force  is  self-condemned; 
it  does  not  need  any  argument,  in  my  opinion,  to  prove  it. 

The  political  economy  that  prevails  was  written  to  justify  the  taking  of 
something  for  nothing;  it  was  written  to  hide  the  blushes  of  the  rich  when 
they  look  into  the  faces  of  the  poor.  These  are  they  who  brand  Anarchy  as 
a  compound  of  “incendiarism,  robbery  and  murder” ;  these  are  they  who 
despoil  the  people;  they  who  love  power  and  hate  equality;  they  who  domi¬ 
nate,  degrade  and  exploit  their  fellow-men,  they  who  employ  brute  force, 
violence  and  wholesale  murder,  to  perpetuate  and  maintain  their  privileges. 

On  July  14,  Jununan  Hamill  took  his  seat  in  the  box  here,  and  the 
question  was  asked  him : 

Q.  “Do  you  believe  in  Socialism,  Anarchism  or  Communism?” 

A.  “Some  of  the  principles  I  believe  in.” 

Lawyer  Ingham  will  remember  the  juryman  said  that. 

Q.  “Do  you  believe  in  capital  punishment,  or  hanging  for  murder?” 

A.  “I  do  not.” 

Q.  “Do  you  believe  in  self-defense?” 

A.  “Yes,  sir.” 

Q.  “Then,  don’t  you  believe  that  society  has  a  right  to  protect  itself?” 

A.  “Not  to  take  life.” 

Challenged  for  cause  by  Mr.  Ingham. 

Now,  you  see  that  this  is  proof  positive  that  the  capitalistic  system  is 
upheld  by  force,  is  perpetuated  by  force.  Lawyer  Ingham  calls  it  in  a  generic 
term,  society.  What  do  you  mean  by  “society”?  What  is  “society”?  Why, 
a  wage  worker  is  no  part  of  society,  except  to  build  the  palaces  for  the  fel¬ 
lows  who  run  society,  to  live  in,  and  furnish  them  with  fine  clothes  and  nice 
wines,  with  luxury  and  ease,  and  so  on.  They — the  workers — are  no  more 
part  of  that  society  than  the  slave  was  of  the  plantation  in  the  south.  They 
are  part  of  the  society  as  the  mud-sills  who  do  the  work,  but  have  no  part  of 
the  benefits.  That  is  the  society  to  which  my  friend  Ingham  refers. 

Now,  we  do  not  want  to  obey — we  Anarchists;  we  do  not  want  to  obey 
this  society — this  generic  society.  What  is  Vanderbilt,  Gould,  Mr.  Phil. 
Armour,  and  a  lot  of  that  kind?  They  are  the  parasites,  the  leeches,  who 
take  all  and  cry  for  more.  That  is  society.  That  constitutes  the  present  so¬ 
ciety.  Now,  we  do  not  like  those  fellows;  we  do  not  want  to  obey  them. 
We  do  not  want  to  serve  them ;  we  do  not  want  to  be  slaves  to  them,  and  by 
golly,  they  are  going  to  take  our  lives  because  we  do  not  want  to  obey  them ; 
because  we  are  Anarchists,  for  Anarchy  simply  means  disobedience.  Now  is 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


107 


that  not  infamous — is  that  not  ridiculous?  The  present  society  is  the  slavery 
of  labor. 

Now,  every  juryman  was  asked  these  questions  by,  I  believe,  Mr.  Grin- 
nell — or  Mr.  Ingham — one  or  the  other  : 

“Do  you  believe  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law?” 

“Do  you  believe  that  society  has  a  right  to  protect  itself  by  law?” 

“Have  you  any  sympathy  for  any  person  or  class  whose  object  is  the 
overthrow  of  the  law,  or  whose  object  is  to  overthrow  law  and  government 
by  violence?” 

Now,  your  honor,  what  is  government  but  violence?  What  is  it?  Force. 
The  last  resort  of  every  law  is  force.  They  have  in  reserve,  always  in  re¬ 
serve,  you  understand,  the  police  and  the  militia,  always ;  as  long  as  nobody 
questions  the  law,  of  course,  nothing  is  said  about  the  club  or  the  bayonet. 
But  let  a  strike  take  place;  let  the  working  class  object  to  overwork,  star¬ 
vation  wages,  or  compulsory  idleness,  then  out  come  the  police,  the  militia, 
and  the  Pinkerton  army  to  preserve  “law  and  order,”  to  force,  to  drive  the 
workers  into  submission,  and  “protect”  society.  Thus  labor  is  enslaved  by 
law.  Oh,  you  sly  rogues !  Oh,  you  sly  fellows  !  Why,  it  is  you  who  cause 
the  workingman — especially  if  he  is  an  Anarchist  like  me — to  occupy  this 
position.  He  is  damned  if  he  does,  and  he  is  damned  if  he  doesn’t.  So  it 
it  tweedle-dee  and  tweedle-dum,  whichever  position  you  take  with  these 
gentlemen  upon  that  question. 

Now,  Juryman  Ames,  on  July  8,  said  he  was  a  hat  and  cap  merchant. 
He  took  a  seat  in  the  box.  In  reply  to  the  question  whether  he  held  any 
prejudice  against  Anarchists,  Communists,  and  Socialists,  he  said:  “Well, 
my  early  education  and  bringing  up  is  entirely  against  anything  of  this  kind.” 

State’s  Attorney  Grinnell  then  rose  and  objected  to  asking  jurors  as  to 
their  prejudice  against  Anarchy,  Communism,  and  Socialism.  You  see,  Mr. 
Grinnell  thought  if  he  could  only  get  that  man — that  kind  of  a  fellow — on 
the  jury,  wouldn’t  it  be  a  fine  thing?  He  doesn’t  want  that  kind  of  a  man 
asked  the  question.  A  fellow  that  was  against  all  this  sort  of  stuff  and  this 
kind  of  thing — he  knew  that  that  kind  of  a  man  would  be  solid  for  hanging 
a  man  that  held  such  ideas.  I  suppose  that  was  his  idea;  I  don’t  know 
what  else  he  could  have  objected  for.  Mr.  Grinnell  said  in  that  connection: 
“This  is  a  charge  of  murder.  This  question  of  Anarchy  is  here  too  much.” 
You  remember  this,  gentlemen.  “We  are  here  to  try  these  men  for  mur¬ 
der,  and  not  because  they  are  Anarchists.”  This  was  the  second  day  of  the 
trial,  mind  you.  That  was  Mr.  Grinnell;  but  he  was  careful  to  ask  every 
one  of  the  jurymen  if  they  had  any  sympathy,  to  ask  them  if  they  were  in 
favor  of  the  labor  movement;  if  they  were  members  of  a  labor  union;  if 
they  were  members  of  a  trades  union — he  was  very  particular  to  find  that 
out — and  in  arguing  the  case  before  the  jury  he  and  his  assistants  finally 
declared  that  Anarchy  was  on  trial,  and  that  was  the  thing  we  must  be 
convicted  of. 

H.  E.  Graves  was  a  railroad  superintendent. 

Q.  “Are  you  opposed  to  labor  unions  or  prejudiced  against  members 
of  labor  organizations?” 

A.  “I  am;  I  am  opposed  to  labor  organizations  of  any  and  all  descrip¬ 
tions.” 

Judge  Gary  inquired  of  him  as  follows: 

Q.  “You  believe  in  individualism — that  is,  every  one,  whether  a  cap¬ 
italist  or  a  laborer,  acting  for  himself,  do  you — you  are  opposed  to  combi¬ 
nation?” 

A.  “Yes,  sir.” 

Attorney  Foster — “Do  you  believe  in  railroad  pools?” 

A.  “Yes,  sir.” 

He  was  laughed  out  of  the  court  room.  Now,  Judge  Gary,  in  his  ques- 


108 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


tions  to  this  man,  teaches  us  individualism.  Now,  that  is  Anarchy,  pure 
and  simple. 

The  Court — Do  you  take  that  from  any  short-hand  report? 

Mr.  Parsons — Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Foster — That  is  true,  so  far  as  the  answer  of  the  witness  is  con¬ 
cerned. 

The  Court — It  don’t  sound  like  anything  I  would  say. 

Mr.  Parsons — Do  you  believe  in  individualism,  every  one,  whether  capi¬ 
talist  or  laborer,  acting  for  himself,  do  you?  Your  honor,  I  took  that  down 
at  the  time  you  said  it.  I  did  not  take  it  from  the  short-hand  reports. 

The  Court — I  don’t  care.  Go  on. 

Mr.  Foster — What  I  have  reference  to  is  what  the  juror  answered. 

The  Court — My  own  language  is  cited  there.  I  don’t  remember  it  now, 
but  it  is  of  no  consequence.  Go  on. 

Mr.  Parsons — If  every  one  acted  for  himself,  as  the  judge  says,  that 
would  be  liberty,  and  liberty  is  the  end  of  authority,  of  government  and  of 
statute  laws. 

July  13 — Juryman  Reed,  a  Sate  street  music  dealer.  Attorney  Ingham 
says:  “If  the  prisoners  are  guilty  you  want  them  convicted;  and  if  they  are 
innocent  you  want  them  acquitted,  do  you  not?”  Then,  “can’t  you  listen  to 
the  testimony  fairly  and  impartially  and  decide  whether  they  are  guilty  or 
innocent?” 

Juryman  Reed  said: 

“When  they  do  not  teach  a  doctrine  that  undermines  the  law,  that  don’t 
break  the  law,  then  there  is  no  objection  to  the  labor  organizations.  There 
could  not  be  any.  I  have  a  prejudice  against  any  man  who  seeks  to  under¬ 
mine  the  social  and  political  laws  of  the  country.  I  am  a  Freethinker.” 

Now,  this  man  condemned  us  to  death,  because  we  seek  to  undermine 
the  social  and  political  laws  of  the  country.  He  is  a  Freethinker;  we  ac¬ 
cepted  him  for  that  reason,  because  we  thought  that,  as  he  claimed  the  right 
of  free  thought  on  religious  matters,  he  would  certainly  be  consistent  and 
give  us  the  right  of  free  thought  on  political  and  social  questions.  But  alas  ! 
Juryman  Reed  is  a  Boston  man.  That  is  the  country  where  they  used  to 
burn  witches  and  condemn  religious  heretics  to  death.  The  right  to  free 
thought  has  been  acquired  after  a  century  of  bloodshed  and  struggle,  and 
now,  because  we,  the  Anarchists,  are  social  and  political  heretics,  he  stran¬ 
gles  us  on  the  gibbet.  Juryman  Reed  concedes  the  right  of  free  thought 
while  he  denies  us  the  right  of  free  action.  What  is  the  one  worth  without 
the  other?  What  a  mockery  to  say  to  the  slave,  “You  are  free  to  think 
you  ought  to  be  free,  but  you  have  no  right  to  be  free.”  To  compel  me  to 
work  and  to  suffer  for  your  benefit,  and  then  console  me  with  the  assur¬ 
ance  that  I  am  free  to  think  what  I  please  about  it,  is  the  very  mockery 
of  liberty.  This  is  the  fruit  of  authority,  of  force,  of  government.  Juror 
Reed  would  have  been  hung  one  hundred  years  ago.  He  hangs  me  today. 
Do  you  wonder  that  I  am  an  Anarchist? 

I  will  read  from  the  Alarm  an  article  headed  “White  Slaves — The  Bit¬ 
ter  Cry  of  Poor  Working  Girls — A  True  Picture  of  Civilization  Under  the 
Infamies  of  Capitalism — Life,  Liberty,  and  Happiness  in  America — Facts  for 
Fathers  and  Mothers  to  Consider.”  Then  follows  a  two  column  article  in 
the  New  York  Evening  Telegram,  a  capitalistic  newspaper,  descriptive  of 
the  life  of  the  sewing  girls  in  New  York  city — American  girls — the  future 
mothers  of  American  citizens.  I  will  not  take  up  the  time  of  the  court  in 
reading  it  in  full.  I  will  read  a  short  extract  as  follows : 

“It  must  be  confessed  that  the  outlook  for  labor  in  all  its  branches  of 
industry  is  most  discouraging,  and  revives  the  idea  of  that  terrible  story  in 
Blackwood,  where  a  prison  of  iron  has  been  so  constructed  as  to  gradually 
contract  until  it  becomes  an  iron  shroud  that  crushes  the  prisoner  within  to 
a  shapeless  pulp.  Labor  is  encircled  by  an  iron  shroud  made  of  two  fac- 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


109 


lions,  the  tendency  of  capital  to  concentrate  itself  in  few  hands  and  the  un¬ 
deniable  fact  that  the  number  of  laborers  will  always  increase  in  greater 
ratio  than  the  amount  of  employment  for  them.  These  items  alone  would, 
if  not  counteracted  by  some  system  that  is  vital,  reduce  the  working  class  in 
time  to  a  condition  far  worse  than  slavery.  In  fact,  slavery  has  been  in  all 
past  ages  the  one  remedy  for  the  overpowering  woes  of  labor,  but  a  remedy 
that  undermined  and  ruined  each  civilization  in  its  turn.  In  the  meantime, 
it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  women  of  America  will  take  up  the  cause  of  their 
sex  and  publicly  denounce  the  monsters  who  propose  to  young  girls  to  work 
sixty  hours  a  week  for  less  than  will  feed  and  clothe  them.  Young  as  is 
the  American  nationality,  it  stands  front  to  front  today  with  the  wonder¬ 
ful  problem  of  civilization.  The  cause  of  the  striking  girls  at  Wallack’s  shirt 
factory  is  not  only  the  cause  of  womanhood  throughout  the  world;  it  is 
also  the  entering  wedge  for  the  great  problem,  ‘What  are  rights  of  labor?’ 
It  must  be  obvious  to  every  senator  and  congressman  and  to  every  dabbler 
in  political  economy  that  life  is  not  worth  living  when  honest  girls  can¬ 
not  support  themselves  by  sixty  hours  of  intense  labor.  It  is  idle  to  prate 
about  the  great  laws  of  supply  and  demand  in  the  face  of  this  present  fact 
that  an  honest  girl,  who  works  ceaselessly  throughout  the  week,  has  not 
enough  wages  to  pay  for  her  board  and  clothes.  In  America  we  change  con¬ 
ditions  and  right  wrong  by  inquiry.  In  Europe  a  social  revolution  is  brew¬ 
ing,  however,  before  which  the  great  revolution  of  France  will  pale.” 

I.  merely  quoted  this  article  in  order  to  show  that  class  of  people  who 
are  crying  out  that  our  grievances  are  imaginary — that  these  grievances  are 
facts — not  imaginary. 

Well,  now,  I  come  to  consider  our  city  of  Chicago.  Take  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  the  political  affairs  of  the  city,  your  honor.  They  are  noted  for 
their  political  corruption.  Take  these  policemen — now,  I  do  not  abuse  the 
policemen  ;  the  policeman  is  a  workingman  the  same  as  I  am.  Now,  a  man’s 
standing  on  the  police  force,  it  is  notorious,  depends  entirely  upon  his  abil¬ 
ity  and  his  willingness  to  club,  and  club  often — hit  everything  that  comes 
along  and  drag  it  in.  The  policemen  have  to  get  their  positions  through  the 
aldermen.  It  is  notorious  that  they  have  to  use  corrupt  methods  to  do  it, 
and  when  a  man  is  once  on  the  force,  imagine  how  subject  he  is  to  his 
higher  officials.  Whatever  his  superior  hands  him  to  do  he  must  do.  He 
must  obey.  He  must  do  it  or  he  will  lose  his  job.  I  do  not  blame  the  po¬ 
lice.  It  is  not  the  individuals  that  I  blame  at  all.  I  say  here,  as  I  said  at 
the  Haymarket — it  is  not  individuals,  it  is  not  against  the  man,  bu.t  it  is 
against  the  system  that  produces  these  things  that  we  contend.  We  object 
to  that. 

The  charge  is  made  that  we  are  “foreigners,”  as  though  it  were  a  crime 
to  be  born  in  some  other  country. 

My  ancestors  came  to  this  country  a  good  while  ago.  My  friend  Neebe 
here  is  the  descendant  of  a  Pennsylvania  Dutchman.  He  and  I  are  the  only 
two  who  had  the  fortune,  or  the  misfortune,  as  some  people  may  look  at  it — 
1  don’t  know  and  I  don’t  care — to  be  born  in  this  country.  My  ancestors 
had  a  hand  in  drawing  up  and  maintaining  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
My  great  great  grand-uncle  lost  a  hand  at  the  Battle  of  Bunker  Hill.  I  had 
a  great  great  grand-uncle  with  Washington  at  Brandywine,  Monmouth  and 
Valley  Forge.  I  have  been  here  long  enough,  I  think,  to  have  rights  guaran¬ 
teed,  at  least  in  the  constitution  of  the  country.  I  am  also  an  Interna¬ 
tionalist. 

My  patriotism  covers  more  than  the  boundary  lines  of  a  single  state ; 
the  world  is  my  country,  all  mankind  my  countrymen.  That  is  what  the 
emblem  of  the  red  flag  signifies ;  it  is  the  symbol  of  the  free,  of  emancipated 
labor.  The  workers  are  without  a  country.  In  all  the  lands  they  are  dis¬ 
inherited,  and  America  is  no  exception.  The  wage  slaves  are  the  dependent 
hirelings  of  the  rich  in  every  land.  They  are  everywhere  social  pariahs 


110 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


without  home  or  country.  As  they  create  all  wealth,  so  also  they  fight  every 
battle,  not  for  themselves  but  for  their  masters.  There  will  be  an  end  to  this 
self-degradation.  In  the  future  labor  will  fight  only  in  self-defense  and 
work  for  itself  and  not  for  another.  Every  government  is  a  conspiracy  to 
enslave  the  laborer. 

Take  the  morality  of  the  capitalistic  system  and  look  at  it.  In  the  mo¬ 
rality  of  the  capitalistic  system  everything  is  for  sale.  Love,  honor,  liberty, 
everything  is  for  sale ;  everything  has  its  price,  under  this  modern  system 
of  commercialism:  profit  and  loss;  meum  et  teum,  and  this  trains  every  man 
to  be  a  liar  and  a  hypocrite.  Men  are  taught  to  be  hypocrites,  to  carry  a 
mask  on  their  face,  to  lie,  to  misrepresent  everything.  No  man  can  be  hon¬ 
est  and  succeed  in  business  or  make  money.  It  is  impossible.  Honesty  is 
punished  with  poverty,  while  dishonesty  revels  in  every  luxury. 

Now,  sir,  is  it  fair  to  try  a  man  by  a  class  jury  for  disloyalty  to  that 
class?  A  verdict  of  guilty  from  such  a  source  is  a  foregone  conclusion.  Do 
you  call  such  a  trial  as  that  a  fair,  impartial,  or  unprejudiced  trial?  Non¬ 
sense.  I  believe  if  there  had  been  some  workingmen  on  that  jury  they 
would  have  understood  something  about  this  question ;  they  would  have 
considered  the  matter  quite  differently.  They  would,  at  least,  have  given 
our  side  a  fair  chance. 

The  coal  monopoly  has  been  touched  upon.  Why,  the  capitalistic  papers 
of  Chicago  say :  “Strangle  it.”  That  is  what  Fielden  said  on  the  Hay- 
market.  The  trouble  is  that  the  moment  this  thing  is  touched  you  sling 
open  the  door  of  Socialism  and  in  they  pile  pell-mell.  It  is  no  use  talk¬ 
ing.  Three  coal  kings  met  in  the  parlor  of  a  New  York  hotel — this  was 
done  last  year — they  advanced  the  price  of  coal,  which  is  a  free  gift  of 
nature  to  all  her  children  as  much  as  air  and  fire  and  water  are ;  it  belongs 
to  the  people  alone,  as  Socialism  maintains  and  will  consummate,  even  if 
this  court  should  carry  out  and  baptize  in  blood  an  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  people,  peaceably  and  lawfully  and  constitutionally,  to  do  and  accom¬ 
plish  this  result.  I  say  these  coal  monopolists  advanced  the  rate  of  coal 
fifty  cents  a  ton,  the  equivalent  of  an  advance  of  $30,000,000  from  the  needy 
people  of  the  United  States. 

But  a  few  days  ago  the  same  coal  monopoly  met  again  and  advanced 
the  price  of  anthracite  fifteen  cents  per  ton,  and  by  limiting  the  output  they 
still  farther  advanced  the  price  of  what  remains  on  their  hands  in  the  mar¬ 
ket,  and  practically  put  a  tax  for  this  prime  necessity  of  life  upon  the  peo¬ 
ple,  west  and  east,  and  turned  the  hundred  thousand  miners  out  to  freeze 
and  starve. 

Last  year  I  was  in  the  West.  I  was  sent  for  by  the  Knights  of  Labor 
in  Kansas  on  the  4th  day  of  July,  last  July  a  year  ago,  to  address  them. 
While  traveling  that  section  I  went  throughout  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Iowa, 
and  Missouri,  and  among  the  places  I  visited  were  the  coal  mines.  I  went 
down  into  the  mines.  I  saw  the  manner  in  which  this  coal  business  was 
carried  on.  They  dig  up  the  coal  out  of  the  ground ;  they  bring  it  up  to  a 
place  which  they  call  the  screening.  There  are  several  kinds  of  coal,  three 
kinds,  the  lump,  the  nut,  and  the  screenings.  Now,  the  screenings  is  the 
portion  of  the  coal  which  falls  through  a  certain  sifter,  or  sieve,  and  among 
it  is  the  dust,  little  lumps  of  coal  an  inch  and  a  half  to  three  inches  in  di¬ 
ameter.  This  coal  constitutes,  the  miners  tell  me,  about  one-fourth  of  a 
ton  to  each  ton.  Well,  the  miner  receives  nothing  for  that  at  all,  he  doesn’t 
get  a  cent;  it  is  not  paid  for.  Last  Fourth  of  July  I  witnessed  these  things 
while  traveling  throughout  the  states,  and  when  I  returned  home,  I  was 
hard  up.  I  did  not  have  money  enough  to  buy  a  ton  of  coal  at  once.  I  had 
to  buy  my  coal  by  the  scuttle,  and  I  paid  10  cents  a  scuttle  for  coal  that 
winter,  and  the  coal  that  I  bought  was  this  screening  coal  which  the  miners 
did  not  get  a  cent  for.  It  cost  me  $9  a  ton,  and  the  miners  did  not  get  a 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


111 


cent  for  it.  And  yet  there  are  people  here  who  say  that  these  grievances 
are  imaginary,  and  that  there  is  nothing  in  them. 

Well,  now,  here  is  a  nice  thing  to  be  read  in  this  country,  in  this  age. 
A  man  was  interviewed  the  other  day  by  the  Chicago  papers.  His  name 
was  Lord  Shastakoff,  a  minister  of  the  Russian  navy,  traveling  in  America 
for  his  health.  This  minister,  this  master  of  the  czar’s  council,  met  the  re¬ 
porters.  He  says:  “Have  you  hanged  your  Nihilists?”  referring  to  the  con¬ 
demned  Anarchists.  On  being  told  that  all  were  condemned  and  in  prison, 
but  they  were  not  yet  hanged,  he  expressed  the  hope  that  the  execution 
would  take  place  at  an  early  day,  and  strongly  discountenanced  any  delay  in 
the  matter.  Talk  about  foreigners — you  fellows  that  are  talking  about  for¬ 
eigners  ;  I  think  that  is  a  pretty  good  one.  You  are  going  to  hang  these 
men  on  this  theory,  because  they  are  foreigners.  Actually  it  was  made  a 
point  to  the  jury — urged  upon  the  jury  by  the  State’s  attorney — that  we 
were  foreigners,  and  that  we  were  hostile  to  the  great  and  glorious  institu¬ 
tions  of  our  America.  “They  were  not  born  here and  they  actually  tried 
to  make  the  jury  believe  that  none  of  us  were  born  here — that  all  of  us 
were  imported;  and  it  did  sway  that  jury;  it  did  have  its  effect  upon  that 
jury.  Now,  here  comes  this  fellow  from  the  czar’s  dominions. 

He  says,  “Gentlemen,  that  has  been  a  good  job;  carry  it  out;  don’t  give 
them  any  show  at  all.” 

Now,  1  denounce  this  thing.  But  you  say  we  are  revolutionists.  Well, 
if  we  are,  who  made  us  such?  Are  not  the  labor  exploiters,  the  monopolists, 
the  mine,  factory  and  workshop  czars  creating  a  revolution?  They  are  the 
revolutionists. 

I  am  only  a  “kicker.”  I  object,  I  say  “No!  take  your  yoke  off  my  neck, 
take  it  off,  I  will  not  have  it  on  there,”  and  they  reply,  “You  stand  still,  now, 
and  let  me  put  in  this  coupling  pin,  and  you’ll  carry  that  yoke  well  enough — 
if  you  don’t  I  will  have  you  carried  off  to  the  police  station;  if  you  make 
any  noise  about  it,  I  will  have  you  hung !”  Sir,  our  execution  will  be  a  legal 
notification  to  the  American  workingmen  to  be  warned  by  our  fate  that  they 
must  not  expect  to  have  any  of  their  “imaginary”  grievances,  as  it  were, 
remedied  or  rectified. 

Now,  your  honor,  I  have  gone  into  this  matter  for  the  reason  that  you 
said  there  was  nothing  in  extenuation  for  these  utterances  and  this  kind  of 
an  organization.  I  believe  you  used  language  something  like  that.  I  have 
gone  into  this  matter  as  extensively  as  I  have  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that,  if  your  honor  was  laboring  under  a  misapprehension,  I  wanted  to  re¬ 
move  that  misapprehension;  that  has  been  the  object  of  what  I  have  said  or 
had  to  say  outside  of  the  matter  or  mere  record  of  the  trial.  Now,  before 
I  conclude  on  this  point  of  extenuation,  I  want  to  read  an  editorial  in  the 
Chicago  Daily  News  of  September  25.  What  is  this?  Is  it  October?* 

General  Parsons — Yes,  the  9th  of  October. 

Mr.  Parsons — Yes.  It  is  concerning  this  workingmen’s  movement:  “The 
strong  probability  of  Mr.  George’s  election  in  New  York  has  also  a  mean¬ 
ing  for  the  so-called  capitalistic  class  of  this  community.  A  brief  summary 
of  the  inception  and  progress  of  the  Anarchists’  movement,  which  terminated 
at  the  Haymarket  on  the  4th  of  May  last,  will  make  this  clear. 

“Following  the  great  railroad  strikes  of  1877  came  the  failure  of  sav¬ 
ings  banks ;  the  unpunished  defalcations  of  the  trustees  of  the  poor,  and  the 
enormous  immigration,  increasing  competition  for  work  and  bringing  with 
it  a  large  element  of  the  victims  of  Bismarck  and  of  Bismarck’s  servility, 
soured  with  life  and  ready  for  desperate  deeds.  Under  such  inauspicious 

*[Note. — I  was  greatly  exhausted  from  physical  and  mental  exertions, 
having  spoken  two  hours  the  day  before  and  over  four  hours  consecutively 
that  day,  the  judge  denying  me  a  short  respite  at  noon.  At  many  times 
during  the  speech  the  judge  had  indicated  his  impatience  by  his  actions  and 
looks,  to  the  discomfiture  of  the  speaker.  When  I  asked  this  question  I  felt 
my  memory  fail  me.] 


112 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


circumstances  workingmen’s  parties  were  formed  and  tickets  put  in  the  field; 
some  were  captured,  others  disorganized,  some  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Socialists,  who  found  time  to  form  a  party  which  elected  Frank  Stauber 
to  the  city  council  from  the  fourteenth  ward.”  I  was  a  prominent  actor,  your 
honor,  in  all  of  this  matter  that  has  been  related  here  in  the  News. 

“Stauber  was  subsequently  re-enforced  by  the  election  of  Alpeter  in 
the  sixth  ward  and  another  one  in  the  fourteenth  and  Chris  Mayer  in  the 
fifteenth,  while  the  Socialistic  labor  candidates  for  the  fifth  and  seventh 
wards  were  only  defeated  by  a  small  majority.  Alpeter  and  Stauber  and 
his  colleagues  refused  all  overtures  from  the  ring  which  then  as  now  con¬ 
trolled  these  politics.  They  were  proof  alike  against  bribery  and  intimidation 
and  the  party  which  they  faithfully  and  honorably  represented  was  becom¬ 
ing  powerful  and  troublesome  as  an  opponent  to  the  ring.  At  the  city  elec¬ 
tion  following,  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  ballot  box  was  perpetrated  in  the 
sixth  ward  by  ‘Cabbage’  Ryan,  through  which  Alpeter  was  defrauded  of  a 
seat,  and  the  offender  was  sheltered  from  punishment,  his  case  being  dis¬ 
missed  without  a  hearing  in  some  manner.  This  was  followed  the  next  year 
by  the  breaking  open  of  the  box  in  the  second  precinct  of  the  fourteenth 
ward  and  the  fraud  and  perjury  by  which  Stauber  was  kept  out  of  his  seat 
for  twenty-three  months,  fraud  and  perjury  which  were  condoned  by  the 
courts.  It  was  upon  the  same  day  and  at  the  same  election  that  Cullerton 
succeeded  by  a  suspicious  majority  of  not  over  twenty  votes  over  a  Socialist 
by  the  name  of  Bauman,  and  the  council  practically  denied  the  contestant  an 
opportunity  to  present  his  rights.  One  of  these  frauds  was  perpetrated  in 
the  interest  of  the  Republican  party,  the  other  in  the  interest  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic.  The  record  needs  no  comment,  but  it  is  no  small  wonder  that  the 
party  was  driven  from  the  field,  unable  to  cope  with  the  rascals  of  both 
the  other  parties.” 

Then  he  goes  on  to  show  that  it  was  such  things  as  this  that  brought 
about  Anarchy  and  produced  the  Haymarket  affair ;  brought  that  affair  about 
— that  is,  he  is  assuming,  your  honor,  that  we,  the  men  alleged,  the  men  con¬ 
victed  by  the  jury,  are  guilty  of  that  thing  which  we  specifically  now  and 
here  deny.  But  even  if  true,  the  editor  of  the  News  alleges,  that  there  were 
extenuating  circumstances :  that  there  was  someone  else  connected  with  the 
moral  responsibility,  even  though  we  were  personally  guilty  of  the  offense. 
Now,  on  the  idea  of  extenuation,  Mayor  Harrison,  about  three  weeks  ago, 
was  asked:  “How  do  you  like  the  verdict  in  the  Anarchist  case?”  “Well, 
I  don't  care  to  talk  about  it.  We  have  punished  these  people  who  violated 
the  law,  and  now  it  remains  for  us  to  cure  the  disease.”  What  does  this 
mean,  your  honor?  Why,  that  we  are  an  effect;  Mayor  Harrison  says  we 
are  an  effect.  Now  it  is  a  funny  doctor  that  would  go  to  work  to  cure  the 
effect  of  a  disease.  You  would  never  get  rid  of  the  disease,  would  you? 
You  never  would  touch  the  cause.  The  mayor  of  the  city  of  Chicago  says 
we  are  the  effect.  I  submit  this  here  as  an  extenuating  circumstance,  and 
as  a  part  of  my  plea  for  a  new  trial.  The  mayor  said  :  “There  is  a  wide 
discontent  among  the  working  people — there  is  no  doubt  about  it;  it  cannot 
be  cured  with  bullets  or  policemen’s  clubs.  We  have  got  to  remove  the 
cause.  That  is  the  task  that  is  before  the  thinking  men,  the  law  makers, 
today.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  working  people  have  reason  to  be 
discontented  all  over  the  country.  Legislation  in  the  interest  of  the  big 
corporations  and  the  monopolies  is  the  fact,  and  no  law  making  for  the 
laboring  classes.  That  is  what  makes  the  laboring  man  discontented.  You 
must  change  all  that,  and  legislators  must  be  elected  who  cannot  be  bought 
by  the  corporations,  or  what  will  happen?  The  people  will  rise  up  in  mobs, 
some  day,  and  will  have  to  be  subdued  with  the  bullet,  and  that  would  be 
the  end  of  free  government.”  Why,  your  honor,  that  is  precisely  what  I 
have  said  a  hundred,  and  perhaps  a  thousand  times.  That  is  all  I  have  ever 
said — go  and  fetch  Harrison — bring  him  here.  He  is  as  much  legally  guilty 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


113 


on  those  words  as  I  am  this  afternoon.  I  offer  that  as  showing  that  there 
are  extenuating  circumstances,  even  though  we  be  guilty  as  charged,  which 
we  deny.  Mayor  Harrison  says  there  is  “wide  discontent  among  the  work¬ 
ing  people  which  cannot  be  cured  with  bullets  and  policemen’s  clubs.”  Now, 
I  want  to  ask  this  court  if  it  thinks  that  that  discontent  can  be  cured  by 
hanging  us? 

Take  the  governor  of  this  state — Governor  Oglesby.  He  made  a  speech 
not  long  ago  on  monopoly.  He  said  that  we  stood  upon  a  social  volcano. 
What  did  he  mean?  If  he  had  made  that  remark  at  the  Haymarket  he  would 
be  in  this  box  here  today,  and  turned  over  to  the  hangman.  If  he  happened 
to  be  at  the  Haymarket  meeting  and  made  that  remark — if  there  had  been 
a  conjunction  of  circumstances  which  would  have  brought  him  to  the  Hay¬ 
market  and  he  had  been  a  workingman,  such  would  have  been  his  fate. 

None  of  the  men  were  ever  arrested  before,  not  one  of  us;  and  I  never 
was  arrested.  I  came  to  the  court  of  my  own  accord.  The  other  seven 
were  never  arrested  before,  never  were  drunk,  never  were  disorderly. 
Sober,  steady,  industrious,  intelligent,  upright,  honorable,  decent  working¬ 
men  ;  there  is  not  a  spot,  a  blemish,  nor  a  single  stain  against  any  of  the 
eight. 

Now  as  to  this  Gilmer  and  Burnett  matter.  I,  as  a  man  here  on  trial 
wishing  to  know  what  your  decision  is  to  be  with  reference  to  my  having  a 
chance  to  prove  my  innocence,  being  convicted  upon  the  testimony  of  a  man 
like  Gilmer,  offered  the  man  Burnett  as  an  offset  to  Gilmer.  He  was  unim¬ 
peached.  No  one  questioned  his  veracity.  He  stood  here  as  an  honest  man. 
Gilmer  did  not.  The  State’s  attorney,  in  his  eagerness  to  produce  this  result 
— and,  by  the  way,  right  here  I  want  to  say,  it  is  no  particular  credit  for  the 
prosecution  to  bring  about  this  verdict.  All  the  rules  of  evidence  and  pro¬ 
cedure  were  reversed  on  this  trial.  Instead  of  being  considered  innocent 
until  our  guilt  was  established,  we  have  been  held  guilty  unless  we  could 
establish  our  innocence.  Why,  the  whole  capitalistic  press,  the  whole  of  the 
police,  the  bankers,  millionaires,  etc.,  everything  was  against  these  poor  men. 
We  had  no  money,  influence,  or  friends.  It  was  not  difficult  to  bring  that 
about  at  all,  and  if  they  did  not  have  a  case  they  could  make  one  easily. 
That  was  an  easy  matter  for  them  to  do — a  very,  very  easy  thing  for  them 
to  do.  Now,  Mr.  Grinnell  must  have  known  that  Gilmer’s  testimony  was 
false.  I  don’t  know  whether  he  did  or  not.  But  it  seems  to  me  he  ought 
to  have  known  it,  because  it  was  clearly  demonstrated  by  the  witness  Bur¬ 
nett,  who  stood  upon  the  stand,  and  whose  testimony  is  unimpeached,  that 
he  called  upon  and  had  talks  with  Attorney  Grinnell  as  early  as  May  6,  and 
had  a  number  of  interviews  with  him  for  the  express  purpose  of  having 
him  identify  Schnaubelt’s  picture  and  fasten  the  deed  upon  Schnaubelt. 
Burnett  refused  to  do  that.  He  said:  “No,  no;  that  ain’t  the  man.  Besides, 
it  was  not  that  way.  He  was  further  down.  It  was  not  up  at  the  alley.” 
Now,  Burnett’s  testimony  contradicted  every  statement  of  Gilmer,  and  Bur¬ 
nett  is  unimpeached  and  Gilmer  is  impeached.  If  the  district  attorney  knew 
of  this  fact,  if  he  knew  the  fact  that  Burnett  was  an  honest  man,  and  called 
at  his  office  and  refused  to  identify  Schnaubelt,  your  honor,  did  not  the  dis¬ 
trict  attorney  lend  himself  to  a  very  bloody  piece  of  work?  I  do  not  see 
how  he  is  going  tc  get  clear  of  that.  It  may  be  he  will,  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  if  this  verdict  is  to  be  carried  out  then  our  blood  will  be  on  his  head 
for  subornation  of  perjury.  I  may  be  mistaken,  your  honor;  I  do  not  im¬ 
pugn  any  man’s  motives.  I  don’t  know,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  is  the  only 
construction  which  could  be  put  upon  this  testimony. 

Two  witnesses,  since  this  verdict  was  made,  came  forward  voluntarily 
and  made  an  affidavit  that  they  had  been  in  Gilmer’s  company  the  night  of 
May  4,  at  another  place,  and  that  Gilmer  was  not  at  the  Haymarket.  Then 
Mr.  Bonfield,  the  chief  of  detectives,  who  is  Mr.  Grinnell’s  right  hand  man — 
he  takes  these  two  men  in  his  charge,  and  by  bribery  or  intimidation,  or  by 


114 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


some  other  means,  1  don’t  know  what,  he  induces  them  to  retract  their 
sworn  statement.  Wasn’t  that  a  scaly  transaction,  worthy  of  the  villainy 
and  corruption  of  the  detective  department? 

Your  honor,  I  have  got  what  would  take  me  an  hour  and  a  half,  possibly 
two  hours,  at  least,  to  say.  I  am  used  to  an  active,  outdoor  life,  and  until 
my  incarceration  here  I  have  never  been  deprived  of  personal  activity,  and 
the  close  confinement  in  a  gloomy  cell — I  only  have  about  two  hours  and  a 
half  exercise  each  day,  practically  about  two  hours  of  the  twenty-four — and 
of  course  it  has  deteriorated  my  physical  system  somewhat;  and  then,  the 
long  mental  strain  of  this  trial  in  addition  to  it.  I  thought  if  your  honor 
could  possibly  give  me  a  little  rest  for  lunch,  if  we  could  adjourn  until  two 
o’clock — it  is  now  one  o’clock — I  don’t  think  I  could  get  through  under  two 
hours.  Still,  if  your  honor  insists,  I  am  ready  to  proceed. 

The  Court — I  do  not  think  I  am  under  any  obligation  to  have  repeated 
adjournments  of  the  court  for  the  purpose  of  listening  to  the  reading  of 
newspapers  or  disquisitions  upon  political  economy,  the  question  only  being 
in  this  case,  whether  the  defendants  killed  Mathias  Degan.  That  is  the  only 
question  in  the  case 

Mr.  Parsons — Yes,  sir;  of  course. 

The  Court — Not  whether  they  did  it  with  their  own  hands,  but  whether 
they  set  causes  at  work  which  did  end  in  his  death. 

Mr.  Parsons — Well,  your  honor,  I  am  proposing  to  show  you  here  that 
by  a  new  trial,  by  a  suspension  of  the  judgment  and  sentence  of  death,  we 
can  establish  our  innocence ;  that  is  what  I  am  proposing  here  to  do ;  that 
is  why  I  am  offering  this.  You  quoted  our  speeches  and  read  many  articles 
from  our  labor  papers  to  prove  that  we  “set  causes  at  work  which  did  end 
in  his  (Degan’s)  death.”  Now,  sir,  I  am- showing  you  by  the  very  same  kind 
of  testimony  taken  from  the  speeches  and  newspapers  of  monopolists  that 
they  and  not  we  “set  causes  at  work  which  did  end  in  his  death.”  And,  sir, 
I  leave  the  world  to  judge  if  our  testimony  against  them  is  not  as  strong  or 
stronger  than  is  your  testimony  against  us.  Of  course  it  is  not  sworn  to; 
it  cannot  be.  I  cannot  get  witnesses  in  here  to  swear  to  them.  I  cannot  swear 
to  it  myself ;  that  is  the  purpose  I  have  in  view.  But  you  did  not  have  our 
speeches  and  newspaper  articles  sworn  to.  You  took  them  for  granted. 
Now,  sir,  against  these  I  put  the  utterances  and  newspaper  articles  of  the 
monopolists.  Now,  my  long  review  of  the  labor  question  was  made  for  the 
express  purpose  of  having  your  honor  understand  the  motives  that  were 
actuating  us  in  this  labor  movement ;  that  you  might  see  that  labor  had 
grievances;  that  it  had  reasons  for  organizing;  that  it  was  not  a  matter  of 
mere  peevish  discontent,  as  we  are  charged  by  some  unthinking  people,  or 
that  the  grievances  of  the  workingmen  are  imaginary,  as  alleged  by  those 
people  who  do  not  feel  any  interest  in  this  matter. 

In  overruling  the  motion  for  a  new  trial,  your  honor  used  this  lan¬ 
guage:  “Whether  these  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  did  participate  or  ex¬ 
pect  the  throwing  of  the  bomb  on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May  is  not  a 
question  which  I  need  to  consider,  because  the  instructions  did  not  go  upon 
that  ground.  The  jury  were  not  instructed  to  find  them  guilty  if  they  be¬ 
lieved  that  they  participated  in  the  throwing  of  the  bomb,  or  encouraged 
or  advised  the  throwing  of  that  bomb,  or  had  knowledge  that  it  was  to  be 
thrown,  or  anything  of  that  sort.  The  conviction  has  not  gone  upon  the 
ground  that  they  did  have  any  actual  participation  in  the  act  which  caused 
the  death  of  Degan,  but  upon  the  ground,  under  the  instructions,  that  they 
had  generally,  by  speech  and  print,  advised  a  large  class  to  commit  murder, 
and  had  left  the  occasion,  time  and  place  to  the  individual  will,  whim  and 
caprice  of  the  individuals  so  advised  :  and  that  in  consequence  of  that  advice 
and  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  influenced  by  it,  somebody  not  known  did  throw 
the  bomb  that  caused  Degan’s  death.  Now,  if  that  is  not  a  correct  princi¬ 
ple  of  law,  then  the  defendants  are  entitled  to  a  new  trial.  This  case  is  with- 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


115 


out  precedent.  There  is  no  example  in  the  law  books  of  a  case  of  this  sort. 
No  such  occurrence  has  ever  happened  before  in  the  history  of  the  world.” 

Now,  your  honor,  you,  by  these  words,  frankly  admit  that  we  have  not 
been  convicted  for  any  act  done,  but  simply  because  of  speeches  made  and 
of  opinions  expressed.  I  am,  therefore,  showing  you  that  that  bomb  was 
hurled  by  labor’s  enemies  at  the  instigation  of  the  monopolists,  and  not  by 
as.  Their  speeches,  their  utterances,  their  newspapers  openly  counseled  and 
advised  by  “speech  and  print”  just  such  things.  Did  they  not?  Then  are 
they  not  the  guilty  perpetrators?  The  question,  to  use  your  honor’s  language, 
is  “not  whether  they  did  it  with  their  own  hands,  but  whether  they  (the 
monopolists)  set  causes  at  work  which  did  end  in  the  Haymarket  tragedy.” 
By  their  own  proposals  1  have  shown  you  that  they  did. 

Socialism,  your  honor,  means  the  abolition  of  wage  slavery,  because  it 
allows  the  people  to  carry  on  production  and  consumption  by  means  of  a 
system  of  universal  co-operation.  That  is  what  I  said  at  the  Haymarket.  I 
pointed  out  at  the  Haymarket  the  fact  that  the  workingmen  were  being  de¬ 
prived,  according  to  Colonel  Wright,  the  commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics  of  the  United  States.  He  proves  by  the  statistics  that  they 
were  producing  values  to  the  extent  of  $10  a  day,  and  receiving  $1.15;  that 
they  were  being  deprived  of  $8.85.  Now,  I  said  to  them:  “Here,”  said  I, 
“Socialism  will  give  you  that  $8.85 ;  under  Socialism  you  would  get  that 
whole  $10,  whereas  under  the  wage  system  you  receive  $1.15  of  it.  But  that 
is  not  all :  Socialism  will  make  your  labor  saving  machinery  a  blessing  in¬ 
stead  of  a  curse  to  you;  by  it  wealth  will  be  increased,  and  drudgery  dimin¬ 
ished  indefinitely.  Socialism  is  simple  justice,  because  wealth  is  a  social,  not 
an  individual  product,  and  its  appropriation  by  a  few  members  of  society 
creates  a  privileged  class — a  class  who  monopolize  all  the  benefits  of  society 
by  enslaving  the  producing  class.”  Now,  your  honor,  this  is  what  makes  the 
monopolists  mad  at  the  Anarchists.  This  angers  the  corporation  men.  See 
what  they  say.  The  result  is  that  a  verdict  must  be  brought  against  So¬ 
cialism  ;  because,  as  the  district  attorney  states  here,  the  law,  and  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  Anarchy  are  upon  trial.  That  is  the  reason.  Not  for  what  I 
did,  but  it  is  for  what  I  believe.  It  is  what  I  say  that  these  men  object  to. 
The  verdict  was  against  Socialism,  as  said  by  the  Chicago  Times  the  day 
after  the  verdict. 

“In  the  opinion  of  many  thoughtful  men  the  labor  question  has  reached 
a  point  where  blood-letting  has  become  necessary,”  says  the  Chicago  Iron- 
Monger. 

“The  execution  of  the  death  penalty  upon  the  Socialist  malefactors  in 
Chicago  will  be  in  its  effect  the  execution  of  the  death  penalty  upon  the 
Socialistic  propaganda  in  this  country. 

“The  verdict  of  death  pronounced  by  a  Chicago  jury  and  court  against 
these  Socialist  malefactors  is  the  verdict  of  the  American  people  against  the 
crime  called  Socialism,”  says  the  Chicago  Times.  By  the  American  people 
the  Times  means  the  monopolists. 

In  more  familiar  words,  as  used  heretofore  by  the  Times,  “other  work¬ 
ingmen  will  take  warning  from  their  fate,  and  learn  a  valuable  lesson.”  The 
Times  in  1878  advised  that  “hand  grenades  (bombs)  should  be  thrown  among 
the  striking  sailors,”  who  were  striving  to  obtain  higher  wages,  “as  by  such 
treatment  they  would  be  taught  a  valuable  lesson,  and  other  strikers  would 
take  warning  from  their  fate.” 

So  it  seems,  “hand  grenades  for  strikers,”  and  “the  gallows  for  Social¬ 
ists,”  are  recommended  by  the  organ  of  monopoly,  as  a  terror  to  both. 

Socialism  aims  not  at  the  lives  of  individuals  but  at  the  system  which 
makes  paupers  and  millionaires  possible.  Socialism  aims  at  the  death  of  no 
man  nor  the  destruction  of  property,  and  the  capitalistic  press  lies,  and  they 
know  it,  when  they  make  such  charges  against  Socialists.  They  lie  about  us 
in  order  to  deceive  the  people;  but  the  people  will  not  be  deceived  much 


116 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


longer.  No,  they  will  not.  The  monopolist  organs  of  our  cities  have  ad¬ 
vised  hand  grenades,  strychnine,  arsenic  and  lead  instead  of  bread,  for  the 
unemployed  and  those  seeking  to  better  their  condition,  long  enough.  It  is 
time  for  this  to  stop.  When  will  it  stop?  In  the  sermon  on  the  mount 
Christ  said :  “What  man  is  there  of  you  who,  if  his  son  shall  ask  him  for 
bread,  will  give  him  a  stone,  or  if  he  shall  ask  for  fish  will  give  him  a 
serpent?  All  things,  therefore,  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do 
unto  3rou,  do  ye  even  so  unto  them.”  It  was,  however,  reserved  for  the  close 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  of  the  Christian  era,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and 
by  the  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  to  permit  to  be  said, 
unrebuked,  in  his  paper :  “When  a  tramp” — an  unemployed  and  starving  la¬ 
boring  man — “asks  you  for  bread  put  strychnine  or  arsenic  on  it  and  he  will 
not  trouble  you  any  more,  and  others  will  keep  out  of  the  neighborhood.” 
I  suppose,  your  honor,  this  was  said  by  a  law-and-order  pharisee. 

This  verdict,  as  it  now  stands,  proclaims  to  the  world  that  he  who 
throws  a  bomb  and  kills  a  score  of  people  is  safe,  while  he  who  speaks  or 
writes  or  works  to  organize  labor  and  peaceably  remove — because  I  deny  the 
charge  of  any  organization  to  attack  anybody;  the  proof  does  not  show  it, 
nor  sustain  it,  nor  maintain  it — to  peaceably  remove  the  cause  of  the  peo¬ 
ple’s  discontent  is  in  danger  of  dungeons  and  of  the  scaffold. 

Every  man  called  upon  to  act  upon  the  jury,  swore  that  he  was  an  enemy 
to  the  labor  movement,  was  prejudiced  against  the  idea  of  Socialism  or  free 
labor.  Not  satisfied  with  such  a  jury,  the  enemies  of  free  rights  resorted 
to  perjury  and  other  inhuman  acts  to  bring  about  a  conviction.  A  few  days 
ago,  in  an  interview  in  the  New  York  World  and  copied  in  the  Chicago  pa¬ 
pers,  Mayor  Harrison  said :  “Right  here  I  would  like  to  say  there  has  been 
the  heartiest  co-operation  between  Mr.  Grinnell  and  myself  from  first  to 
last,  for  without  me  he  would  never  have  been  able  to  get  certain  evidence 
to  obtain  which  I  did  that  which,  if  it  had  been  done  in  the  city  of  London, 
would  upset  the  throne  of  Victoria ;  that  which  could  be  done  in  no  mon¬ 
archical  country  with  safety  was  done  here ;  because  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  people  as  a  servant  of  the  people  I  did  precisely  what  I  knew  the  peo¬ 
ple  wanted  done  and  would  sustain,  something  which,  if  wrong,  they  could 
easily  rectify.”  Now,  your  honor,  there  were  wrongs  done  here.  The  mayor 
says  so.  You  can  rectify  them.  Suspend  your  sentence.  Give  us  a  chance 
in  a  new  trial.  Now,  here  is  the  officer  highest  in  the  city,  who  frankly 
admits  that  he  employed  unlawful  means  in  order  to  convict  us,  because  the 
people  wanted  him  to  do  it.  Has  this  court,  has  the  State’s  attorney  and 
the  police  done  the  same  thing  in  order  to  convict  us?  Mayor  Harrison  re¬ 
fers  to  the  arrest  of  persons,  the  seizure  of  property,  the  searches  of  homes 
and  places  of  business  without  warrant,  and  in  admitted  disregard  of  con¬ 
stitutional  and  legal  guarantees  of  personal  liberty  and  right,  which  was 
done  by  the  city  police  immediately  after  the  meeting  of  May  4,  1886.  As 
proof  of  what  he  said,  there  followed  that  night  in  this  city  an  era  of  offi¬ 
cial  lawlessness  in  these  respects,  which  according  to  Mayor  Harrison,  would 
not  have  been  tolerated  in  any  other  civilized  country  in  the  world,  and 
which  if  done  in  the  city  of  London  would  have  upset  the  throne  of  Victoria, 
and  which  the  mayor  said  could  not  have  been  done  in  any  monarchical 
country  with  safety.  The  mayor’s  confession  is  charmingly  frank,  and  is 
significant.  Is  it  then  true  that  in  this  land,  which  boasts  of  its  liberty, 
private  right  can  be  more  safely  disregarded  in  obedience  to  public  clamor 
than  in  any  other  civilized  country?  Is  it  true  that  the  ruling,  the  moneyed 
class  can  set  aside  the  law  with  impunity?  Is  it  true  that  we  are  in  an  era 
when  only  property  is  sacred,  and  not  the  liberty  or  right  of  the  common 
citizen  ;  when  the  poor  man  may  be  arrested,  or  a  hated  minority  hung  with 
impunity,  but  to  touch  the  institution  of  property  is  sacrilege?  Is  it  true 
that  the  processes  which  resulted  in  this  verdict  were  as  illegal  as  those 
original  proceedings  against  us  were  high-handed,  unauthorized,  and  uncon- 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


117 


stitutional,  as  confessed  by  the  mayor?  Is  it  true  that  the  verdict  itself  is 
the  result  of  the  same  public  sentiment  which  sustained  the  unauthorized, 
unlawful  conduct  spoken  of  by  Mayor  Harrison?  Can  these  things  be  true? 
See  the  methods  employed  to  cook  up  testimony  against  us.  On  the  22nd  day 
of  August,  1886,  the  day  following  the  verdict,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  trial, 
Captain  Michael  Schaack,  who  is  credited  with  manipulating  the  evidence 
against  us,  made  a  statement  which  was  sent  out  by  the  Associated  Press  as 
follows :  He  was  asked  if  the  police  were  now  through  with  their  labors. 
‘‘Through,”  said  he,  “why,  they  have  barely  commenced.  We  mean  to  have 
others  who  are  liable  to  the  same  charge  indicted.  I  tell  you  the  Anarchist 
business  in  Chicago  is  only  commenced  and  before  it  is  through  we  will  have 
them  all  in  jail,  hanged  or  driven  out  of  the  city.”  “Did  you  place  any  men 
under  arrest  yesterday?”  “That  I  do  not  wish  to  state.”  “The  report  is 
made  that  there  are  warrants  out  for  a  large  number  of  persons.”  “If  you 
think  a  moment  you  will  see  how  foolish  the  idea  would  be.  We  have  no 
room  for  a  large  number  of  persons  in  the  jail,  and  it  would  be  a  needless 
expense  to  arrest  many  at  once.  We  can  get  them  as  fast  as  we  want  them. 
We  do  not  need  to  arrest  them  now.  They  may  try  to  leave  the  city.  Time 
enough  to  arrest  them  when  they  do.”  “Will  any  women  be  arrested?” 
“Why  not?  Some  of  them  are  a  mighty  sight  worse  than  the  men.”  “Do 
you  think,”  said  the  captain,  continuing,  “that  if  I  had  told  the  newspapers 
what  I  was  doing  when  the  Anarchist  trial  was  going  on  that  the  jury  would 
have  brought  in  the  verdict  of  yesterday?  No,  sir,  a  thousand  times,  no! 
Every  prisoner  would  have  gone  free.  Every  reporter  who  came  to  me  got 
nothing.  I  was  making  up  the  evidence,  piece  by  piece,  little  by  little,  put¬ 
ting  it  where  it  belonged.  If  I  had  told  all  I  knew  as  fast  as  I  got  the  points 
the  defense  would  have  known  what  evidence  was  to  be  brought  against 
them,  and  would  have  been  prepared  to  meet  it.” 

Now,  your  honor,  it  was  claimed  throughout  this  trial — the  State’s  at¬ 
torney  claimed  throughout  the  trial  that  he  relied  confidently  on  a  verdict  of 
guilty.  They  maintained  that  there  was  no  doubt  about  it.  I  wish  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  declaration  of  Schaack:  “No,  sir,  a  thousand  times,  no! 
Every  prisoner  would  have  gone  free  had  I  told  all  I  knew  as  fast  as  I  got 
the  points.  The  defense  would  have  known  what  evidence  was  to  be  brought 
against  them,  and  would  be  prepared  to  meet  it.”  This  is  equivalent  to  a 
declaration  that  if  the  accused  persons  had  known  what  evidence  was  to  be 
brought  against  them  they  would  have  brought  evidence  that  would  have 
been  sufficient  to  acquit  them  “a  thousand  times”  over.  Here,  then,  is  an 
explicit  confession  that  we  were  condemned  to  death  by  evidence  that  was 
kept  secret  from  both  us  and  the  public,  and  finally  sprung  upon  us  at  the 
trial.  See  how  Gilmer  was  sprung  upon  us.  The  district  attorney,  when 
he  opened  his  case,  said  that  he  had  nothing  to  conceal;  he  was  going  to  be 
fair,  and  square,  and  honest  about  the  thing;  going  to  tell  us  what  he  was 
going  to  prove,  and  in  the  middle  of  the  trial  he  brings  up  this  man  Gilmer, 
a  wholly  unexpected  thing  to  us,  and  that  was  the  hair  upon  which  hung  the 
thread  which  connected  us  with  Mathias  Degan,  and  the  instrumentality  by 
which  the  verdict  was  brought  about.  The  State’s  attorney  said  he  was  not 
going  to  conceal  anything  and  then  concealed  the  very  thing  that  was  ma¬ 
terial. 

Now,  your  honor,  this  confession  that  certain  testimony  was  sprung  up¬ 
on  us  at  the  trial,  this  Gilmer  matter,  for  instance,  when  no  earthly  oppor¬ 
tunity  was  given  us  to  meet  it,  and  Captain  Schaack’s  admission,  that  we 
would  have  been  acquitted  a  thousand  times  over,  if  we  had  known  this  evi¬ 
dence  and  then  been  permitted  to  contradict  it  and  explain  it ;  this  confession, 
says  Boston  Liberty,  commenting  upon  this  infamous  proceeding,  is  equiv¬ 
alent  to  a  confession  tV»at  we  were  innocent  and  that  Captain  Schaack  knew 
we  were  innocent,  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  that  he  knew  that  there  was 
evidence  that  would  have  acquitted  us  a  thousand  times  over  if  we  had  been 


118 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


allowed  to  produce  it ;  but  he  glories  in  the  fact  that  he  was  too  smart  for 
us ;  that  by  keeping  this  evidence  secret  from  us  and  the  public  he  was  en¬ 
abled  to  bring  us  into  the  trap ;  a  trap,  your  honor,  a  trap  which  he  and  one 
other  man — I  suppose  he  refers  to  the  State’s  attorney — had  prepared  for  us, 
and  thus  secured  our  conviction. 

Now,  if  this  is  not  a  confession  that  Captain  Schaack  and  one  other 
man,  an  accomplice,  set  themselves  deliberately  to  work  to  procure  the  ju¬ 
dicial  murder  of  seven  innocent  men,  men  whom  they  declare  themselves  to 
be  innocent  men,  known  by  him  and  his  accomplice  to  be  innocent,  then 
what  is  it?  Plainly,  it  is  nothing  else.  Schaack’s  confession  that  our  evi¬ 
dence  was  such  that,  if  permitted  to  be  introduced  it  would  have  acquitted 
us  a  thousand  times  over,  is  equivalent  to  a  confession  that  it  is  true,  and 
that  to  procure  our  conviction  by  the  suppression  of  this  evidence  was  to 
procure  the  judicial  murder  of  innocent  men.  And  this  work,  says  Captain 
Schaack,  is  to  go  on  until  he  has  all  the  Anarchists  in  jail,  hung,  or  driven 
out  of  the  city. 

Your  honor,  I  would  like  to  make  a  remark  right  here.  What  stronger 
evidence  can  be  required  to  prove  the  infamous  character  of  what  are  called 
our  criminal  courts?  Evidently,  the  courts  are  criminal,  whether  the  persons 
they  convict  are  criminal  or  not.  Under  such  a  condition  of  things  as  this, 
manifestly,  a  trial  can  have  no  color  of  justice  or  reason  or  be  anything  else 
than  a  conspiracy  to  convict  a  man,  whether  he  be  innocent  or  guilty,  unless 
he  is  permitted  to  know  what  it  is  that  they  propose  to  prove  upon  him.  This 
would  be  just,  but  justice  and  law  are  quite  different  things. 

Now,  as  a  part  of  this  foul  conspiracy  the  district  attorney  sprung  his 
witness,  Gilmer,  upon  us  when  it  was  too  late  for  us  to  prove  him  to  be  a 
suborned,  perjured  liar,  and  the  confession  of  this  man  Schaack  is  one  that 
concerns  the  American  people.  They  are  bound  to  take  notice  of  it.  This 
trial,  your  honor,  is  not  simply  the  trial  and  condemnation  of  seven  Anar¬ 
chists,  but  it  is  the  trial  of  the  government  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  as  rep¬ 
resented  by  the  gentlemen  in  this  prosecution,  and  the  government  of  the 
United  States  itself.  The  oppressions  of  which  we  complain  are  such  as  the 
government  of  the  United  States  is  responsible  for,  and  such  as  many  mil¬ 
lions  of  people,  in  fact,  nearly  all  the  people  in  the  United  States,  are  crying 
out  against.  You  need  not  think  that  we  stand  alone.  Some  are  crying  out 
in  more  desperate  tones  than  others,  but  all  in  tones  that  it  will  not  do  for 
any  government,  much  less  a  government — a  pretended  government — of  the 
people — to  disregard. 

Now,  in  this  state  of  things  a  murder  is  committed  by  some  one.  Not 
by  us,  nor  by  any  of  us  but  by  some  one  as  yet  unknown.  We  are  confessed 
by  the  chief  agent  in  procuring  our  conviction  to  be  innocent,  and  have  had 
abundant  proof  of  our  innocence,  or  if  we  had  been  permitted  to  do  so  we 
could  have  proved  ourselves  innocent  “a  thousand  times  over,”  says  Captain 
Schaack.  But  the  government  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  despairing  mil¬ 
lions,  whose  woes  and  whose  miseries  we  voice  here  today — the  government 
is  responsible  for  their  wrongs,  but  the  government  does  not  brook  any  for¬ 
cible  resistance  by  even  so  much  as  a  single  man.  It  regards  this  single 
man  as  a  torch  that  may  explode  vast  numbers  of  others.  It,  therefore,  de¬ 
mands  not  only  a  victim,  but  victims.  Victims  they  must  have,  whether  they 
be  innocent  or  whether  they  be  guilty.  The  innocent  will  answer  for  exam¬ 
ples  as  well  as  the  guilty.  “Away  with  them  !  Victims  are  what  we  want,” 
say  monopoly  and  corporations.  So,  being  unable  to  discover  the  guilty  man, 
the  machinery  is  set  to  work  to  convict  seven  innocent  men  in  his  stead. 

Your  honor,  there  has  been  a  great  deal  said  in  the  trial  of  this  case 
about  the  “Board  of  Trade  demonstration,”  and  the  red  and  black  flags. 

In  your  refusal  to  grant  us  a  new  trial  you  allege  as  one  of  the  reasons 
why  Oscar  Neebe  should  be  sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  fifteen  years  that  he 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


119 


presided  at  mass  meetings  of  workingmen  and  organized  several  Trades 
Unions.  You  say: 

“As  to  Neebe’s  part,  there  is  the  evidence  of  witnesses  that  he  presided 
at  meetings  called  by  the  class  of  people  from  whom  this  combination  was 
drawn,  and  that  he  called  meetings  of  the  people  who  were  engaged  in  the 
movement.  There  is  evidence  that  he  marched  in  the  Board  of  Trade  proces¬ 
sion,  the  object  of  which  was  said  to  be  the  demolition  of  that  building.” 

Now,  sir,  do  you  hold  it  to  be  a  crime  for  a  man  to  organize  the  work¬ 
ing  people  to  defend  themselves  against  “rifle  diet,  police  clubs,  strychnine,” 
etc.,  or  to  preside  at  mass  mettings  of  workingmen?  You  say  that  the  ob¬ 
ject  of  the  Board  of  Trade  demonstration  was  “the  demolition  of  the  build¬ 
ing.”  Who  told  you  so?  Where  did  you  get  your  information?  There  is  no 
evidence  before  this  court  to  that  effect.  Not  a  particle.  You  say  that  our 
purpose  was  “to  sack  the  Board  of  Trade.”  Ridiculous!  Where  did  your 
honor  get  such  an  idea  from?  There  is  no  testimony  here  to  that  effect. 
What  right  has  your  honor  to  assume  what  our  motives  were  to  charge  us 
with  intentions  contrary  to  the  proof?  Now,  sir,  I  deny  it.  It  is  not  true. 

Your  honor,  you  say,  in  overruling  our  motion  for  a  new  trial,  that  our 
purpose  was  “the  demolition  of  the  building,”  to  “sack  it.”  Where  is  the 
proof?  The  article  I  have  just  read  giving  an  account  of  the  demonstration 
says  it  was  intended  as  a  protest  against  the  practices  of  these  monopolists; 
that  was  all.  It  was  intended  as  a  manifestation  of  the  working  people’s  dis¬ 
content  with  the  existing  order  of  things;  a  protest  against  the  practices  of 
the  class  which  the  Board  of  Trade  represents.  Now,  sir,  is  this  the  kind 
of  testimony  upon  which  you  intend  to  deprive  us  of  our  lives  and  liberty? 
Is  this  the  great  crime  for  which  we  must  suffer  death?  Because  we  have 
held  such  meetings,  and  made  such  speeches,  you  claim  that  we  are  responsi¬ 
ble  for  the  action  of  the  person  who  threw  the  bomb  at  the  Haymarket.  If 
this  is  law,  then  every  dissatisfied  workingman  and  woman  in  America  could 
be  convicted  for  the  same  reason. 

Your  honor,  this  was  a  class  verdict.  I  will  admit  one  thing:  I  believe 
the  jury  were  to  a  large  extent  imposed  upon.  Now,  when  the  State’s  at¬ 
torney  comes  in  and  brings  the  gory  garments  of  the  police,  clotted  with 
blood  and  filled  with  holes,  and  exhibits  these  garments  to  the  jury — no¬ 
body  denies  that  these  men  were  killed — what  was  that  done  for?  To  prove 
that  the  policemen  had  been  killed?  Nobody  denies  that,  what  was  it  done 
for?  It  was  done  to  prejudice  that  jury,  to  inflame  that  jury,  and,  in  the 
language  of  Mr.  Grinnell  when  he  closed  his  speech,  he  says :  “Let  these 
things  steel  your  hearts  against  these  miserable  wretches  and  scoundrels.” 

Suppose  this  Indianapolis  man,  sent  by  monopolists,  came  here  and 
threw  the  bomb,  and  these  gory  garments  are  to  be  thrown  around  here  in 
the  court  room  before  the  jury  for  the  purpose  of  steeling  their  hearts  to 
bring  about  the  conviction  of  eight  innocent  men.  I  ask  your  honor — I  ask 
you  for  another  trial. 

Lawyer  Ingham  with  clenched  fist,  swollen  neck  and  blood-shot  eyes  ex¬ 
claimed  to  the  jury:  “The  State  of  Illinois  is  strong  enough  to  hang  every 
one  of  these  Anarchists!”  Well,  who  said  it  was  not?  But  who  would  believe 
it  mean  enough  to  do  so  just  because  it  can?  The  burly  brute  rapes  his 
helpless  victim  simply  because  he  is  mean  enough  and  strong  enough  to  do 
so.  The  bourgeoisie  society  is  not  itself,  however,  unless  it  commits  whole-r 
sale  outrages  upon  the  proletariat  and  afterwards  gloats  over  its  victims. 

The  ballot.  Your  honor,  you  have  heard  of  this  Law  and  Order  League 
in  these  United  States.  It  has  been  organized  in  Chicago  and  called  a  con¬ 
servators’  league  or  association.  It  is  an  organization  of  big  tax-payers,  if 
you  have  heard  of  it,  and  they  come  out  and  openly  declare  that  they  do  not 
intend  to  permit  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  the  workingmen  to  come  into 
power  through  the  ballot  box.  That  is  their  own  declaration,  made  in  the 
papers  here  at  their  meetings,  in  their  reports.  Of  course,  I  don’t  know  any- 


123 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


thing  further  about  it.  But  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question,  viz. :  Don’t  you 
think  a  man  who  is  not  able  to  control  his  bread — and  you  know  what  X 
mean  by  that — has  a  poor  chance  to  control  his  vote ;  not  a  very  good  chance 
to  control  his  vote?  In  other  words,  don’t  you  think  those  who  control  the 
industries  of  the  country  can  and  do  control  the  votes  of  that  country? 
Don’t  you  think  that  a  man  who  must  sell  his  labor  or  starve  will  sell  his 
vote  when  the  same  alternative  is  presented?  Does  politics  control  wealth 
or  wealth  politics?  Are  the  economically  enslaved  politically  free?  Your 
honor,  political  liberty  without  economic  freedom  is  an  empty  phrase.  The 
wage  slave  is  a  political  freeman;  yes,  he  is  free  to  choose  from  among 
his  economic  masters  the  one  who  shall  rule  and  govern  him.  A  choice  of 
masters,  that  is  all.  So  this  “Law  and  Order”  League  proposes  to  control 
the  ballots  of  their  wage  slaves. 

Now,  then,  the  Haymarket,  what  of  it?  I  had  been  away  to  Cincinnati. 
I  went  to  Cincinnati  Saturday  night,  May  1.  I  spoke  there  Sunday  morning 
or  during  the  day,  at  a  great  labor  demonstration,  an  eight  hour  demon¬ 
stration,  a  picnic  of  the  workingmen  at  Cincinnati.  They  sent  for  me  to 
come  down.  I  stayed  there  Sunday.  I  went  to  their  grove  Sunday  night, 

and  I  started  back  to  Chicago  Monday  night,  reached  here  Tuesday  morn¬ 

ing,  May  4,  and  went  home  about  eight  o’clock  and  saw  my  wife.  I  took 
a  nap  on  the  lounge.  About  ten  o’clock  she  woke  me,  then  she  says  to  me, 
“We  had  a  very  interesting  meeting  last  Sunday  of  the  tailor  girls,  the  sew¬ 
ing  girls  of  Chicago,  a  large  mass  meeting.  I  spoke  to  them,  addressed  the 
meeting;  they  were  anxious  to  organize,  and  I  think  we  ought  to  do  something 
*-0  help  those  sewing  women  to  organize  and  join  the  eight  hour  movement, 
'ecause  they  work  harder  than  anybody;  these  great  tailor  machines  are  very 
ird  to  work.”  So  ended  the  conversation.  She  showed  me  the  importance 
or  having  a  meeting  called  at  once  and  doing  something  for  the  eight  hour 
movement  for  the  girls.  Well,  I  went  on  my  way  down  town  and  I  went 
to  Greif’s  Hall.  All  the  halls  were  occupied ;  this  was  during  the  eight 
hour  strike.  All  the  halls  were  occupied.  A  great  many  meetings  were  being 

held.  I  could  get  a  hall  nowhere  else  and  the  meeting  was  to  be  a  business 

meeting  anyway.  It  was  not  to  be  a  general  meeting,  it  was  merely  to  appropri¬ 
ate  money  and  take  action  and  appoint  a  committee  to  get  up  hand  bills  and 
get  some  hall  and  so  forth.  That  was  all,  so  it  did  not  require  much ;  any  or¬ 
dinary  room,  any  little  room,  anywhere,  would  have  done  for  that,  and  the 
offices  of  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung,  at  107  Fifth  avenue,  suited  that  purpose;  so 
I  announced  it  in  the  News  about  twelve  o’clock,  I  believe,  and  it  was  in 
the  News  in  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  not  stating  what  the  meeting  was 
for,  only  it  was  important  business.  So  at  eight  o’clock  or  about  half-past 
seven  that  night — my  wife  and  Mrs.  Holmes  left  my  home  at  No.  245  West 
Indiana  street,  accompanied  by  my  two  little  babes — you  have  seen  them 
here ;  a  little  girl  of  five  and  a  boy  of  seven ;  you  have  seen  them  in  the 
court  room  often.  It  was  a  nice  evening  and  we  walked  down  town ;  we 
walked  until  we  got  to  Randolph  and  Halsted  streets — however,  in  the  after¬ 
noon,  late  in  the  afternoon,  at  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter-Zeitung ,  I  learned 
that  there  was  going  to  be  a  meeting  at  the  Haymarket.  But  the  meeting 
at  No.  107  Fifth  avenue  had  already  been  called,  and  I  could  not  attend  it; 
f  could  not  go  over  there.  At  half-past  seven  I  left  home  with  my  wife, 
Mrs.  Holmes  and  the  children.  We  got  to  Halsted  street.  Two  reporters, 
seeing  me,  thought  there  was  a  chance  to  get  an  item  and  came  over  to  me 
— the  Time s  man  and  the  Tribune  man;  I  forget  their  names. 

“Hello,  Parsons,  what  is  the  news?”  says  one. 

“I  don’t  know  anything.” 

“Going  to  be  a  meeting  here  tonight?” 

“Yes,  I  guess  so.” 

“Going  to  speak?” 


ADDRESS  OF  ALBERT  R.  PARSONS 


121 


“Where  are  you  going?” 

“I  have  got  another  meeting  on  hand  tonight.” 

And  some  playful  remark  was  made.  I  slapped  one  of  them  on  the 
back.  I  was  quite  well  acquainted  with  the  men  and  we  made  one  or  two 
brief  remarks,  and,  as  they  testified  on  the  stand,  I  got  on  the  car  right  then 
and  there  with  my  wife  and  two  children,  in  company  with  Mrs.  Holmes, 
and  they  saw  that.  I  went  down  to  Fifth  avenue.  When  I  got  down  there 
I  found  four  or  five  other  ladies  there  and  about — well,  probably,  twelve  or 
fifteen  men.  It  was  about  8 :30  o’clock  when  we  opened — I  guess  it  was. 
We  stayed  there  about  half  an  hour.  We  settled  the  business.  About  the 
time  we  were  through  with  it  a  committee  came  from  the  Haymarket,  say¬ 
ing:  “Nobody  is  over  there  but  Spies.  There  is  an  awful  big  crowd,  3,000 
or  4,000  people.  For  God’s  sake  send  somebody  over.  Come  over,  Parsons; 
come  over,  Fielden.”  Well,  we  went  there.  The  meeting  was  adjourned  and 
we  all  went  over  there  together — all  of  us;  my  wife,  Mrs.  Holmes,  two 
other  ladies,  and  my  two  little  children,  went  over  to  the  Haymarket  meet¬ 
ing.  And  these  ladies  sat  ten  feet  behind  the  wagon  from  which  I  spoke. 

Your  honor,  is  it  possible  that  a  man  would  go  into  the  dynamite-bomb 
business  under  those  conditions  and  those  circumstances?  It  is  incredible. 
It  is  beyond  human  nature  to  believe  such  a  thing  possible,  absolutely. 

Well,  the  next  day — I  related  on  the  witness  stand  all  that  I  saw — the 
next  day  I  saw  that  they  were  dragging  these  men  to  prison,  treating  them 
in  a  shameful  manner.  I  left  the  city.  I  went  to  Geneva,  Ill.,  for  a  couple 
of  days ;  stayed  there  with  my  friend  Holmes.  Then  I  went  to  Elgin,  Ill., ; 
stayed  there  a  couple  of  days.  Then  I  left  there  and  went  to  Waukesha, 
Wis.,  where  I  obtained  employment  as  a  carpenter  and  afterward  as  a  painter, 
and  remained  for  over  seven  weeks  in  Waukesha.  My  health  was  debilitated, 
and  I  went  to  the  springs  when  I  was  thirsty.  The  house  I  was  working 
on  was  only  a  half  a  block  from  the  springs,  and  I  needed  the  recreation  and 
the  rest,  the  pure  air,  and  the  water  besides.  When  I  saw  the  day  fixed 
for  the  opening  of  this  trial,  knowing  I  was  an  innocent  man,  and  also  feeling 
that  it  was  my  duty  to  come  forward  and  share  whatever  fate  had  in  store 
for  my  comrades,  and  also  to  stand,  if  need  be,  on  the  scaffold,  and  vindi¬ 
cate  the  rights  of  labor,  the  cause  of  liberty,  and  the  relief  of  the  oppressed, 
1  returned.  How  did  I  return?  It  is  interesting,  but  it  will  take  time  to 
relate  it,  and  I  will  not  state  it.  I  ran  the  gauntlet.  I  went  from  Waukesha 
to  Milwaukee.  I  took  the  St.  Paul  train  in  the  morning  at  the  Milwaukee 
depot  and  came  to  Chicago ;  arrived  here  at  8 :30,  I  suppose,  in  the  morn¬ 
ing.  Went  to  the  house  of  my  friend,  Mrs.  Ames,  on  Morgan  street.  Sent 
for  my  wife  and  had  a  talk  with  her.  I  sent  word  to  Captain  Black  that  I 
was  here  and  prepared  to  surrender.  He  sent  word  back  to  me  that  he 
was  ready  to  receive  me.  I  met  him  at  the  threshold  of  this  building  and 
we  came  up  here  together.  I  stood  in  the  presence  of  this  court.  I  have 
nothing,  not  even  now,  to  regret. 


Come  Not  to  My  Grave  with  Your  Mournings* 

“Come  not  to  my  grave  with  your  mournings, 

With  your  lamentations  and  tears, 

With  your  sad  forebodings  and  fears! 

When  my  lips  are  dumb, 

Do  not  thus  come. 


“Bring  no  long  train  of  carriages, 

No  hearse  ■  crowned  with  waving  plumes, 
Which  the  gaunt  glory  of  death  illumes; 
But  ivith  hands  on  my  breast 
Let  me  rest. 

“Insult  not  my  dust  with  your  pity, 

Ye  who’re  left  on  this  desolate  shore 
Still  to  suffer  and  lose  and  deplore. 

’ Tis  I  should,  as  I  do, 

Pity  you. 

“ For  me  no  more  are  the  hardships, 

The  bitterness ,  heartaches,  and  strife, 

The  sadness  and  sorrows  of  life, 

But  the  glory  divine — 

This  is  mine. 


“Poor  creatures!  Afraid  of  the  darkness, 

Who  groan  at  the  anguish  to  come. 

How  silent  I  go  to  my  home! 

Cease  your  sorrowful  bell — 

1  am  well." 

♦This  poem  was  recited  by  Mr.  Parsons  in  his  cell  a  few  moments  before 
he  was  led  out  to  be  murdered. 


